What is the test for the theory of "no physical damage: no injury"?

I find that the motor vehicle damage resulting from the accident was minimal. However, a low impact collision does not prevent a court from inferring significant injuries. As Mr. Justice Thackray stated in Gordon v. Palmer, supra: I do not subscribe to the view that if there is no motor vehicle damage then there is no injury… It is not a legal principle of which I am aware and I have never heard it endorsed as a medical principle. Significant injuries can be caused by the most casual of slips and falls. Conversely, accidents causing extensive property damage may leave those involved unscathed. The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. Objectivity is thus preserved and the public does not have to concern itself with extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process. In the case at bar the limited amount of motor vehicle damage is not, in my opinion, the yardstick by which to measure the extent of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. No evidence was called to substantiate the theory of “no physical damage: no injury”. The plaintiff alleged serious back injuries and resultant damages. The extent will be decided on the evidence.