30 I have mentioned that no issue has been taken with the learned Master's expression of opinion that the discovered document was "highly relevant" to the matters in issue between the parties on the s 47A leave application. It was (and still is) acknowledged that production of the discovered document might well influence the outcome of that application. Indeed that was, as I have said, the very prejudice on the Minister's side which was pointed to by his counsel. It must consequently be accepted, for the purposes of the appeal, that the non-production of the document might well have the consequence that the respondent would forever be barred from bringing the second proceedings. It is, I think, important to bear in mind that the learned Master exercised his discretion in a context in which the second proceedings (and the s 47A leave application) involve the same parties as are involved in the first proceedings and, although raising different issues, are related to the first proceedings. It is also important to bear in mind that, if this was not a special category of case in which leave to bring the second proceedings was required, the document in question would, in any event, have been discovered in the course of those proceedings. Indeed, it may well be discoverable, if discovery was to be sought, in the s 47A leave application proceedings themselves (see O 26 r 1(1) of the Rules). When all of these circumstances are taken together there is, in my opinion, enough in them to justify their categorisation as "special" and to warrant the grant of leave to make use of the discovered document in the s 47A leave application.