Yes, the Courts will assist with issuing and manage subpoenas at the request of the parties and the leave of the Arbitrator.

Further, the Courts may, require the party seeking to issue such subpoenas provide security for the third parties' legal and other costs of complying with such subpoenas.

Care, should of course, be used in drafting such subpoenas otherwise costs consequences may follow.

• International Arbitration Act 1974, s23
• Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic), s27A
• Commercial Arbitration Act 2011 (Vic), s27B

• Naumovski & Ors v Ugrinovski & Ors¹⁾ Subpoenas - Subpoena issued to non-party – Objection to subpoena - Costs on an indemnity basis – Breach of overarching obligations – Court power to sanction – Sections 19, 20, 23, 24 and 29 Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)
• Walsh v WorleyParsons Limited²⁾ Subpoenas – Application to set aside – Rule 42.04(1) of Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) – Whether legitimate forensic purpose exists – Whether subpoenas are vexatious, oppressive or an abuse of process of Court – Whether subpoenas are a breach of overarching obligations pursuant to ss 16, 19, 20 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) – Some subpoenas set aside wholly or in part as ‘fishing’.
• Esposito Holdings Pty Ltd v UDP Holdings Pty Ltd³⁾
  • Croft J p9, the determination of an application for permission is not to be treated as a de facto hearing of the application to the Court for the issue of a subpoena. Parliament has given that role to the Court not to the arbitral tribunal. I see no support in the language of s23 for any conclusion that the application to the court proceeds in the nature of a merits review of the decision of the tribunal. This is particularly so as neither the Act nor the Model Law countenance any merits review or appeal from decisions of an arbitral tribunal. p10 On this basis, it is sufficient to observe that the arbitral tribunal has conducted the informed evaluation ⁴⁾… for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant permission.

• ASADA v 34 Players and One Support Person⁵⁾

• Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock ⁶⁾