An undertaking is dominant if it has substantial market power on the relevant market such that it can behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumers.

This is a concept in competition law. To be regarded as dominant, an undertaking must possess a substantial level of market power. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has defined ‘dominant position’ as ‘a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately its consumers.’ The CMA considers the principal factors in ascertaining whether an undertaking has a dominant position are: the market share of the undertaking and its competitors; any barriers to entry to the market; and buyer power.

Article 102 TFEU prohibits undertakings which hold a dominant position within the EU, or a substantial part of it, from abusing that dominant position, insofar as it may affect trade between Member States. It is often unclear whether a company is 'dominant' for the purposes of EU competition law. Dominance does not necessarily entail having a majority share of the market, but a company with a share of 50% will typically be presumed to be dominant. Unless a company has been involved in previous competition law cases, or findings of dominance in a merger context, it may be uncertain as to whether it is dominant as a matter of law. This Practice Note considers in further detail what constitutes a ‘dominant position’. The legal test The test for establishing dominance has been set out by the Court of Justice as: 'a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the relevant market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently

The effective right of ownership enjoyed by the feu or vassal and generally regarded as full ownership subject to certain rights of the superior.

Law360: Domino's Pizza Group Plc said 11 April 2024 it has completed the purchase of an 85% holding in Shorecal Ltd, a Domino's franchise business in Ireland, after the country's antitrust regulator gave the €91.9m transaction the go-ahead.

Employment analysis: Every business operating in the EU with 50 or more workers will have to take a hard look at its whistleblower policy and assimilate changes required by the new EU Whistleblower Directive (the Directive). It is also something companies with connections to EU companies need to think about. Jonathan Pickworth, partner, Adina Ezekiel, practice innovation knowledge attorney, and Harry Fathers, trainee solicitor, at Paul Hastings LLP provide a reminder of the implications of some of the key provisions of the Directive and an update on transposition across the EU.

A gift made in contemplation of death, conditional on death, the donor having parted with dominion over the subject-matter of the gift.

An communications provider whose customer number(s) are in the process of being, or have been passed or ported to a recipient operator.

Personal Injury analysis: Personal injury claims for injuries caused by farm animals are rare and difficult to win, not least because proving ownership of animals can be far from straightforward, as Elisabeth Halls, partner in the personal injury team, and James Briggs, trainee solicitor at Sharp Young & Pearce explain.

Arbitration analysis: In this article the author looks at the omission of adverse inferences from the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules. Alexander A Witt of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe , explores this omission and the implications.

Private Client analysis: In this complex covert medication case, the High Court considered whether the benefits of continuing important medical treatment outweighed the negatives of the severe residence and contact restrictions needed to ensure this could be done. In deciding that they did not and that the protected party (A) should return to live with her mother despite their problematic relationship, the mother’s past opposition to treatment and the risk that A’s treatment might be stopped altogether, the Court emphasised that its goal and the goal of all professionals involved in Court of Protection cases should not be risk-elimination, but to find the available option which is the least restrictive of the person’s autonomy and human rights, even if that option is not free of difficulty for the person in question. This approach has now been approved by the Court of Appeal. Written by Katharine Elliot, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This case is a salutary reminder to so-called ‘one-person companies’, where one person is the sole director and shareholder of the company, that they cannot treat the assets of a limited company as their own. In this case, the sole director and shareholder of the company withdrew money from the company for his own benefit. In his oral evidence, the director conceded that he transferred money to himself from the company as and when needed. The judge found that the director had breached the duties that he owed to the company pursuant to the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) in withdrawing the money from the company; the payments in substance amounted to an impermissible distribution of capital. Although the judge found that the director was, on the face of it, liable to restore the sum of around £2.2m to the company in light of his misfeasance, the judge tailored the relief to be awarded under section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986 such that the director would only be liable to make up sums needed to pay the sole creditor, statutory interest, costs and expenses of the liquidation, in full. Written by James A Davies, barrister at Enterprise Chambers.