“…stinguished from the question whether a nuisance is actionable without proof of damage: this is well illustrated by Nicholls vEly Beet Sugar Factory Ltd (No 2) [1936] Ch 343 where at 349 Lord Wright MR held that in relation to nuisance of the type there alleged (interference with a fishery) damage was not the gist of the action, an…”
“…re is actionable as a nuisance without the need to prove specific damage: Harrop v Hurst (1868-69) LR 4 Ex 43, 46-47, 48; Nicholls v Ely Beet Sugar Factory Ltd [1936] Ch 343, 349-350. Furthermore, in the case of an artificial object protruding into a claimant’s property from the neighbouring land, Mr David Hart QC, for NR, accepted…”