60 The critical question in this appeal is whether the claim lodged by the appellant with the Trust was one authorised by s114(2). That subsection simply provides, "A claim is to be lodged with the Trust", without specifying what sort of claim is referred to, or in what circumstances the subsection is applicable. It must be read in context. It follows immediately after s114(1), which empowers the Court to order the Trust to advertise for claims to be made against a court fund, or to notify prospective claimants that claims may be made against the court fund. Read in that context, I do not think s114(2) should be interpreted as allowing or requiring a claim to be lodged with the Trust by any claimant who wishes to seek money from a court fund established in respect of a legal practitioner, whatever the basis for the claim is. Rather, I think s114(2) should be interpreted as applying only to claims of the sort that the Trust is authorised to advertise for, or to solicit, pursuant to an order made under s114(1). If a claimant within a class of claimants that the Trust was ordered to advertise for, or to give notification to, happened to lodge a claim before receiving such notification or before the publication of the appropriate advertisement, I think such a claim should be regarded as falling within the scope of s114(2). But otherwise I think that only claims lodged in response to such advertisements or notifications would fall within the scope of s114(2). Anyone wishing to obtain moneys from a court fund, but not entitled to lodge a claim with the Trust under s114(2), would have to either persuade the Society to make an appropriate interlocutory application for his or her benefit, or else make his or her own interlocutory application.