There are many similarities in the factual and legal foundations of the High Court cases of Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (Teoh) and Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (Lam). Both Teoh and Lam concern individuals who were facing the revocation of their Australian entry visas, and consequently deportation, due to drug offences. In challenging these decisions, both Mr Teoh and Mr Lam claimed that they had been denied procedural fairness on the basis that they had a legitimate expectation that a course of conduct would be pursued by officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural/Ethnic Affairs. Both men were fathers of Australian citizens and provided testimonials to the effect that it was in the best interests of their children that they remain in Australia rather than be returned to their country of origin. At this point the similarities end.

The High Court's decision in Teoh was ‘taken to the streets’ due to the importance attached by the Court to Australia's ratification of an international treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, in domestic law. Lam did not excite any public controversy (except perhaps amongst administrative lawyers). Teoh was regarded as a significant development in the doctrine of legitimate expectations in Australian administrative law, whereas Lam appeared to spell a retreat from the concept.