Dominant meaning

This Checklist This Checklist outlines which provisions in a lease and other relevant associated documentation should be carefully examined to ascertain whether a right of light subsists. A right of light is an easement granting a landowner the entitlement to receive natural light through an opening in a building on its land. The owner of the land encumbered by that right (the 'servient Building') must not impede or disturb it without first obtaining consent. For any proposed development, it is therefore essential to identify neighbouring properties that could be enjoying a right of light (the 'dominant Building'). For further information on rights of light, see the following Practice Notes: Establishing and maintaining rights of light Rights of light—obstruction notices Rights of light claims Rights of light—insurance for developers Section 2 of the Prescription Act 1832 (PA 1832) requires actual enjoyment of light, meaning that those with less than a freehold interest can acquire a right of light in their own...

Is there an actionable claim? Note: private competition claims are predominantly governed by national law, and procedural as well as substantive rules differ markedly across the EU; accordingly, when planning competition litigation, assessments will need to be made for each individual jurisdiction. Possible causes of action Assess whether UK competition law has been breached (or EU competition law where the period predates the end of the Brexit transition period). Determine if the loss arises from an agreement or concerted practice between undertakings, particularly between competitors (see further, The prohibition on restrictive agreements). Evaluate whether an undertaking that is arguably dominant—typically indicated by a substantial share of a relevant market—caused the loss through abusive conduct contrary to Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 (and/or Article 102 TFEU if before the end of the Brexit transition period) (see further, The prohibition on abuse of dominance). Consider whether other national or foreign competition laws have...

This checklist summarises the factors relevant to assessing an undertaking’s market power. Such analysis is pertinent not only to mergers but also, for example, to determining whether an undertaking is to be regarded as dominant. Does an undertaking have market power? When evaluating market power, the following should be considered. Not every factor needs to be applied in each instance; ultimately, a case-by-case assessment, grounded in the characteristics of the relevant market, is required. Market position of undertaking and its competitors Calculation of market shares is ordinarily the starting point of any assessment The larger the market share, and the longer it is sustained, the greater the likelihood that the undertaking holds a dominant position 50% market share or more: generally evidence of the existence of a dominant market position 40–50% market share: may indicate market power, but this depends on additional considerations Below 40% market share: dominance is unlikely... ...

Private actions CAT grants CPO in PC games class action The CAT has delivered its judgment in Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative v Valve Corporation, a claim for damages issued by Vicki Shotbolt Class Representative (PCR), under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998, against Valve Corporation (Valve), asserting that Valve abused its dominant position, in breach of Article 101 TFEU (up to 31 December 2020) and the Chapter II prohibition of the Competition Act 1998. Background The claim revolves around Valve’s running of Steam, a prominent digital distribution platform for PC video games, via which titles are almost exclusively supplied in digital form...

Private actions The CAT issued its judgment in Infederation Ltd v Google Inc and Others, on an application by Google LLC, Google Ireland Limited and Google UK Limited (together, Google) seeking to strike out sections of Infederation Limited’s (Foundem) particulars of claim relating to Foundem’s damages case against Google, alleging abuse of a dominant position in the market for online search. The CAT rejected the application, concluding that the proposed amendments amounted to a fresh claim that did not arise from the same, or substantially the same, facts as the original claim and was therefore time‑barred—see further, judgment NOTE—For all live private actions in the UK that have been made public, see further, UK private actions—ongoing cases tracker Upcoming dates—For dates of upcoming UK competition developments, see further, UK Competition calendar ...

Private actions CAT issues judgment concerning class action finding Apple abused its dominant position in iOS app distribution and in-app payment services The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in Dr Rachael Kent v Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International, a collective claim brought by Dr Rachael Kent against Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd (together, Apple), alleging breaches of the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU (before 31 December 2020). The Tribunal found Apple abused its dominant position over app distribution and in-app payment services, breaching Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 102 TFEU. Background In May 2021, the Class Representative, Dr Rachael Kent, applied to commence collective proceedings under section 47B of the Competition Act 1998 against Apple...

This table summarises all completed investigations by Singapore’s competition authority (the Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore—the CCCS) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominant positions since 2018. Note—only investigations that have been made public are included in this table. 2025 Investigations under section 34 of the Competition Act Remittance services — ZGR Global; Hanshan Issues: Restrictive agreement—information exchange Developments: Decision finding infringement—31/07/2025; penalties totalling $5.36m imposed Contracting — Trust-Build Engineering & Construction Pte. Ltd; Hunan Fengtian Construction Group Co. Ltd Issues: Restrictive agreement—bid rigging Developments: Decision finding infringement—23/05/2025; penalties totalling $4.6m imposed Investigations under section 47 of the Competition Act The CCCS has not yet issued any decisions under section 47 in 2025 2024 Investigations under section 34 of the Competition Act Remittance services — ZGR Global Pte Ltd; Hanshan...

This FLASHCARD is designed to help you take in and retrieve the essential points on the recognition of UK central counterparties (CCPs) under Regulation (EU) 648/2012 (EU EMIR). How did Brexit affect the EU market for clearing services? Before Brexit, three UK CCPs—London Clearing House (LCH), LME Clear and ICE Clear Europe—held a dominant role in the EU market for derivatives clearing. As at June 2017, it was estimated that UK CCPs cleared roughly 90% of euro-denominated interest rate swaps for euro area counterparties, and 40% of their euro-denominated credit default swaps. When the implementation period ended on 31 December 2020, UK CCPs were no longer under EU supervision and became third country CCPs for the purposes of EU EMIR. Article 25(1) of EU EMIR provides that a...

This table outlines all concluded investigations by Spain’s competition authority (the National Commission on Markets and Competition—the CNMC) into alleged cartels, anti-competitive agreements and abuses of dominance (Articles 101/102 TFEU and national equivalents) since 2018. Note—only investigations made public are included. 2026 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Professional hairdressing products • I.C.O.N Issues: Restrictive agreements—price fixing Developments: Infringement decision issued—12/01/2026; fines totalling €1.2m imposed Investigations under Article 102 TFEU/Article 2 of the Spanish Competition Act Case name, companies under investigation and industry: Automotive fuels • Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos • Solred • Campsa Estaciones de Servicio Issues: Concerns the Repsol Group abused its dominant position through its pricing policy that squeezed the margins of independent low-cost petrol stations Developments: Infringement decision issued—03/02/2026; fines totalling €20.5 imposed 2025 Investigations under Article 101 TFEU/Article 1 of the Spanish Competition Act ...

DATE [ date ] PARTIES [ name of owner of Dominant Land ], of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with registered office at OR [ address ] (Releasor) [ name of owner of Servient Land ], of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) with registered office at OR [ address ] (Grantor) [ name of Mortgagee ], of OR incorporated in England and Wales (company registration number [ number ]) having its registered office at [ address ] (Mortgagee) ...

We are strong but fair competitors We pursue competition with energy while upholding integrity and complying with all relevant competition laws. These laws exist to protect businesses and consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, and to preserve effective competition. Competition laws forbid 'restraints of trade', covering certain kinds of agreements or conduct involving rivals, customers or suppliers, and can also apply to a single undertaking with a dominant market position...

Litigation privilege This privilege safeguards exchanges (i) between a solicitor and their client, or (ii) between the client and a third party—see Practice Note: Legal professional privilege for in-house lawyers—Litigation privilege. To set up and preserve litigation privilege, you can sidestep the challenge of trying to pin down pertinent information—such as dates and grounds—by capturing the key points in this Precedent. It is supplied in Excel format and therefore cannot be downloaded into Word...

This query asks whether the owner of the land (the servient owner) on which a septic tank currently sits, and across which a neighbour has acquired prescriptive drainage rights, is entitled to replace that tank with a modern treatment unit, and whether the neighbour benefiting from those rights (the dominant owner) can be obliged to contribute to the costs of installing and maintaining the replacement apparatus. Can the servient owner replace the tank? On the basis that the dominant owner holds a prescriptive right to drain into the septic tank (as stated), the initial issue is the servient owner’s entitlement to substitute the existing septic tank with a contemporary equivalent. Provided the works are organised so that the neighbour’s drainage rights are not hindered to an actionable extent, both during installation and thereafter, there is, in principle, no reason to object to the servient owner upgrading their own installation in this manner...

An easement is a right enjoyed by one piece of land (the dominant tenement) over adjacent land (the servient tenement). There are numerous varieties of easement; rights of way are the best known, yet they cover rights to take water, and rights relating to storage, parking, access and the like. Easements are attached to the land and are registrable, which means they will bind later owners of the servient land and will continue to benefit the dominant land even following a change in ownership, making them proprietary rights, as opposed to a licence personal to a landowner from time to time...

This Q&A concerns a contract for land and vehicles―a mixed contract. Not every land transaction must follow a public procurement process publicised in the Official Journal of the European Union. Whether such a procedure is needed depends on the character of the arrangement and the contracting authority’s involvement, though land can still comprise a procurable component within a contract. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 (PCR 2015), SI 2015/102, do not apply where a contract contains inseparable mixed elements and the procurable aspects are not the contract’s principal object. The key point here is to determine whether the dominant element is the vehicles or the land. Under PCR 2015, SI 2015/102, reg 4(2), there are provisions guiding a contracting authority when dealing with a contract that includes some, but not exclusively, procurable elements...