Key facts of the case:The headmaster of a private school refused to admit as a pupil a Sikh boy unless he removed the turban and cut his hair. The boy claimed that the 'no turban rule' amounted to unlawful indirect racial discrimination under s 1(1)(b) of the Race Relations Act 1976 against a member of a 'racial group' as defined in s 3(1) of that Act. His claim was rejected in the County Court and Court of Appeal.Main reasoning/argumentation: The Court of Appeal had held that Sikhs were defined by religion, not birth; discrimination against wearers of the turban might be religious discrimination but it was not racial discrimination; and that 'ethnic origins' were synonymous with 'racial origins'.Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case: (1) were ethnic origins synonymous with racial origins for the purpose of defining a 'racial group' under s 3(1) of the Act.(2) meaning of an 'ethnic group'.Results and most important consequences, implications of the case: The House of Lords held that in modern usage the term 'ethnic' is to be construed in a broad cultural and historical context and wider than 'racial' which has a biological sense.An 'ethnic group' has a long shared history and a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition, the following characteristics could also be relevant, namely (a) either a common geographical origin or descent from a small number of common ancestors, (b) a common language, which did not necessarily have to be peculiar to the group, (c) a common literature peculiar to the group, (d) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it, and (e) the characteristic of being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community.The case has been widely relied upon in subsequent decisions in order to determine whether a particular group of persons constitutes a racial or ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act.For example the case was applied in Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton  1 All ER 306 to find for the first time that Gypsies constituted a racial group by virtue of their shared history, geographical origin, distinct customs, language derived from Romany and common culture. In contrast the case was relied on to find that Rastafarians were not a separate ethnic group: Crown Suppliers (PSA) Ltd v Dawkins  ICR 517.The appellant's appeal to the House of Lords was allowed and there was a finding of unlawful indirect racial discrimination.