-4- A 7. B In our views, none of the questions meet the requirements of section 22(1)(b). C 8. D A In respect of Question (1), the applicant’s complaint in the Form 86 was directed against the Commissioner’s submission at the B C D hearing before the Board that he had no duty to fish for exemption E provision that might be relied upon by a party and that, in considering the F G applicant’s appeal, the Board should ignore the exemption under section 61 E F of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, Cap. 486 (“PDPO”), which the G applicant had not raised when he was invited to make comments on the H I complaint that he infringed the Data Protection Principles (“DPP”). We do H not accept there are merits in this complaint for the reasons set out in I paragraphs 53 and 54 of our Judgment. The matters advanced by the J K L applicant on the present application do not persuade us otherwise. 9. We further observe there was no dispute before the Board or Chung J or in the appeal before us that in deciding to issue an Enforcement J K L Notice, the Commissioner needs to be satisfied that there has been a M contravention of the DPP. The point that was in issue is whether the N Commissioner, in determining whether there has been a contravention of M N the DPP, comes under a duty to exhaust all the exemptions provided under O the PDPO, irrespective of whether they have been invoked by the person P Q R complained of. Question (1) therefore does not arise from the appeal O P before us. Q 10. We are also of the view that Question (2) does not arise from R the appeal before us. In the case under consideration, the conversations in S question had been recorded and, contrary to the applicant’s contention, the T Commissioner did not find that the Recorded Conversations contained no S T personal data (see paragraph 11 of the Investigation Report). There was U U V V