A judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the city from enforcing five gun-control ordinances pending a challenge from the National Rifle Association.

The NRA argues that state law prevents Pennsylvania municipalities from regulating guns, a view that even the city's crime-weary district attorney shares.

"The city has no basis to pass any of these gun-control ordinances and they know it," lawyer C. Scott Shields argued on the NRA's behalf.

City lawyers contend that Philadelphia can pass gun-control ordinances if the laws are outside the scope of state measures. As an example, lawyer Mark Zecca told the judge that one Pennsylvania county had banned guns at its courthouse.

Among other things, the five city ordinances passed April 10 ban the sale of assault weapons; require owners to report a lost or stolen gun within 24 hours; and limit firearms purchases to one a month.

They came in response to the city's one-a-day murder rate and its reputation for being a weapons source for criminals in New York and other states with strict gun laws.

The judge scheduled arguments for April 28. She said she would rule very quickly, although her decision is sure to be appealed by the losing side.

Mayor Michael Nutter, who declared a "crime emergency" shortly after taking office in January, quickly signed the City Council bills into law - despite still-pending litigation over earlier gun-control efforts.

European law firm, Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, has announced the successful recovery of £550,000 in compensation for a labourer injured at work.

In December 2005, the labourer was instructed by his foreman to collect waste materials from a large open shed. On entering the shed, a large mechanical digger with a sharp bladed shovel drove into him. The shovel hit both legs causing a severe injury at work. As a result, he had a below knee amputation of his left leg. This has meant that while he can now walk using a prosthetic limb, he is unable to return to his former employment or any other manual labour.

Paul McNeil, partner in the Personal Injury Group at Field Fisher Waterhouse, was given legal instruction by the client at the end of 2005.

Although the labourer’s former employer quickly accepted that they were primarily responsible for the accident, they argued that he was also partially responsible for the negligence. They alleged that he had actually gone into the shed against instructions by the foreman.

Field Fisher Waterhouse succeeded in obtaining substantial interim payments to fund medical treatment and rehabilitation. The initial case to decide the issue of fault was fixed for trial in March 2007, however a few days before this date the employers accepted that they were fully liable for the accident.

In the meantime, there was a dispute between the employer and their insurer, which resulted in the insurer cancelling the policy. The meant that Field Fisher Waterhouse then had to bring proceedings against the employer directly.

Due to a significant difference in opinion between the employer and Field Fisher Waterhouse’s valuation of the injury compensation claim, another trial needed to be fixed for December 2007 to settle the matter. Eventually after extensive negotiation, the claim was settled out of court in the sum of £550,000 plus costs.

The labourer received his damages in full as the case was conducted on a no win, no fee basis.

Paul McNeil said: “I am happy that we were able to recover this compensation for our client, who was injured through no fault of his own whilst at work.”

It is alleged that Diebold’s directors are violating their fiduciary duties of due care, good faith and loyalty by rejecting without discussion an acquisition offer at a substantial premium by United Technologies, to the detriment of Diebold and its shareholders. Despite the potential to enhance shareholder value beyond that which Diebold can offer as an independent corporation, the board of directors has refused to negotiate with United Technologies.

On March 3, 2008, United Technologies went public with an offer to buy Diebold for $2.63 billion, or $40 a share. This represented a 66% premium to Diebold’s February 29, 2008 share price of $24.12. United Technologies has stated, in a press release, that if the Diebold board begins merger discussions, it is open to raising the offer price. On the same day, Diebold’s board categorically rejected the offer and refused further negotiation.

If you own stock in Diebold and you wish to discuss your rights as an investor, please visit our website, http://www.girardgibbs.com/dbd.html, or contact Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com) or Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com) toll free at (866) 981-4800.