Money. Identity. Technology.
Follow the money. Find the decision.
Distribution, exits & review
Liberty and Privacy International filed a separate complaint and submitted arguments. The tribunal denied concealment of basic Apple case details while keeping the March hearing private.
Solid lines: documented in a cited record. Dashed: reported or inferred. Hollow arrows: proposed powers. Choose a connection for its evidence.
This is a procedural decision, not a TCN merits ruling, a universal open-hearing right or an advertising remedy. The later identified DFF grant cannot be assumed to have initiated the earlier filing.
Liberty — DFF grant recipient → filed the separate complaint → Liberty / Privacy International complaint, 13 March 2025
2025-03-13 – 2025-03-13
Liberty says filing occurred13March2025; tribunal paragraph33 independently acknowledges filing the day before its14March hearing. This precedes the identified June2026 DFF grant, without establishing earlier funding or reimbursement.
Privacy International → co-filed the separate complaint → Liberty / Privacy International complaint, 13 March 2025
2025-03-13 – 2025-03-13
Recipient account names PI and two individuals; the tribunal acknowledges the organisations and individuals filed a separate complaint. No individual biographies or original pleading are imported.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal → dismissed the confidentiality application → Application to conceal basic Apple case details
2025-04-07 – 2025-04-07
The tribunal refused concealment of basic case details. This procedural outcome is not a merits ruling against encryption-access powers or blanket public access to future proceedings.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal → kept the March hearing private → Private tribunal hearing, 14 March 2025
2025-03-14 – 2025-03-14
The court considered third-party written arguments but did not permit the organisations to attend this hearing. That limitation coexists with disclosure of basic case information.