which has meanings of its own does not find its way into the Ordinance. It will require very persuasive authorities in similar legislative situation as in Hong Kong to succeed importing such an independent right into the Ordinance. The Appellant's contention and reliance on the above authorities do not surmount the above hurdle. The Board agrees with Google LLC's Senior Counsel's submission that there is no such independent right in Hong Kong. 92. Though not an independent doctrine on its own right in law the right , to be forgotten is not totally irrelevant in the context of DPP2 and section 26 of the Ordinance. It is relevant to the extent that the concept may be applicable in the course of due consideration of the application of DPP2 and section 26. Hence, the 13 criteria in UK cases ofNTl and NT2 would thus still be relevant consideration in appropriate cases under the Ordinance. L . 93. Conclusion In conclusion, for the reasons stated in this Decision, the Appellant's appeal is dismissed. 94. At the end of the appeal hearing, both the Respondent and Google LLC indicated that they would not seek costs against the Appellant in any event. In the circumstances, the Board makes no order as to costs of the appeal. 95. It remains for the Board to thank all parties and their representatives for their assistance to the Board. Ms. Cindy Chan, Counsel for the 63 #