Metal structure, when new, is designed not to suffer a failure until at-least 50% above worst case design loads. When old, it's probably about the same.
Composite structure, when new, is designed to a figure somewhere in the bracket 90 - 125% above worst case design loads. Worst case however, which is end of life in a high temperature environment, you might see that come down to 50% to match metal structures.
A quick bit of theory you won't find in ATPL notes...
Worst case load predicted in service = "Limit Load"
Load that should not cause "catastrophic failure" in the first 3 seconds of loading = "Ultimate load"
Reserve Factor = Ultimate load / limit load.
All aircraft structure should be designed with RF>1.5, but composite structure RF>>1.5 because of the life and environment dependency of composite materials strength.
The relationship between weight and undercarriage load is non-linear and complex, because it's dependent upon the design of the undercarriage shock absorption mechanism. However, I'd be surprised if it was worse than a square law rule.
So, if we take the (likely) weakest components - the metal parts - SQRT(1.5) = 1.22.
So if you are at a weight below 122% of MLW, then the odds are you will not suffer catastrophic failure of the undercarriage or any supporting structure, and quite probably the same is true at higher weights. That doesn't mean you won't damage the aeroplane - because that is entirely possible, indeed probably quite likely. But I would not expect it to be sufficiently damaged as to prevent a normal landing and taxi to park.
Just do expect your employer to see a seriously high inspection and possibly repair bill, so if it is reasonable to burn off fuel and do a normal landing, that would be the better option.
G