"What are the probabilities of such documentary support being in existence? Is it merely pure conjecture? If so, applying the plaintiffs' own test, production should be refused. But in my judgment, there is more to it than that. It is, at the very least, 'on the cards' that, in the light of the bank's known support and advocacy of profit-sharing, they expressed their unequivocal dislike when the government expressed determination to impose its final terms upon Burmah. It was, I think, an over-simplification for the Attorney-General to submit that the only issue is whether the January agreement was in fact inequitable, and not whether the bank regarded it as inequitable. For if, faced by government obduracy despite its strong representations, the bank insisted upon the proposed contractual terms, an arguable foundation for the appellants' allegations of unconscionability against the bank itself could be laid. Then is all this merely 'on the cards,' simply a 'fishing expedition'? If that is all there is to it, discovery should be refused. But in my judgment the existence of such documentary material is likely. And that, in my judgment, is sufficient. For although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has pointed out, it was known in Conway v. Rimmer [1968] UKHL 2; [1968] A.C. 910 that there were in existence probationary reports on the plaintiff, positive knowledge of that sort is not, in my view, a sine qua non before discovery may be ordered. Nevertheless, as I have already indicated, I think it is very unlikely to have come into existence before January 10, 1975, and (if it exists at all) it will probably be found in the 10 documents numbered 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 34, 26, 32, 35 and 26 in the appellants' case."