extra-territorial application of the Ordinance (see paragraph 86 on page 18). Immediately after stating the reasons above, the Board added a footnote that “the relevant provision in the Ordinance dealing with extraterritoriality appears to be section 33 which is not yet in operation (see " , footnote 7 on page 18). 54. The following three authorities were also relied on by the Appellant: a . Oriental Press Group Ltd v Google LLC [2018] 1 HKLRD 1042. The plaintiffs therein claimed that when a Google search ÿwas con ducted using “白粉幸艮” (translation: "white powder JJ newspaper ) as the keyword, the results would expressly refer to their Chinese names (see paragraphs 2.2-2.3 on pages 10451046). The Court of Appeal affirmed the judge's decision to grant the plaintiffs leave to serve a writ of summons out of jurisdiction against the defendant for defamation, on the' grounds that they showed a real and substantial tort had been committed in Hong Kong (see paragraph 3.36 on page 1058); b . David M Webb v Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (unrep., Administrative Appeal No. 54/2014，27 October 2015). The complainant therein claimed that when a search was conducted using her name as the keyword, on an online publication in Hong Kong the appellant founded and edited, the results would show links to judgments of divorce proceedings, in which the names of her, her ex-husband and their children were redacted by the court (see paragraphs 2-7 on pages 2-4). The Board affirmed the Respondent's decision to direct the 45