Corelogic UK Ltd v Landmark Valuation Services Ltd is a 2026 English High Court case about access by a third-party application to a data platform. Landmark runs DataWeb, through which, it was accepted, all domestic mortgage valuations flow. Corelogic’s SurveyHub connects to DataWeb by a “Beta Interface” that copies data out and uses robotic process automation (RPA) bots that log in like human users to push data back. Under a 2016 agreement Corelogic paid for that access per transaction, and Landmark agreed to develop an API to replace the Beta Interface. It never did. The court held Landmark in breach and awarded Corelogic GBP 332,405.44 for the extra cost of keeping the bots running.[1]
Background
Landmark, formerly Quest End Computer Services, is a software, data and analytics company in the UK property market. It provides an electronic data interchange network (SPN) and DataWeb, a workflow tool used by mortgage valuation providers to receive instructions from lenders, complete valuations and return them. Corelogic, formerly ETech Solutions, provides SurveyHub, a mobile back-office tool for valuation providers. It was common ground that SurveyHub must interoperate with DataWeb to work.[1]
In late 2015 Landmark learned that Corelogic had obtained unauthorised access to DataWeb, and its solicitors sent a cease and desist letter on 13 November 2015. Corelogic responded that, as effectively a monopoly provider, Landmark could not under competition law refuse access subject to a reasonable fee, and Landmark did not challenge that assertion. The parties then negotiated the “API Development and Access Agreement in relation to Data Web” of 14 March 2016.[1]
The agreement granted Corelogic a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to facilitate access by Authorised Users, meaning customers with a valid DataWeb subscription, through the Beta Interface until an API was accepted and then through the API. Corelogic paid a GBP 100,000 development fee and a service charge of GBP 1.26 per completed valuation report submitted through the interface, later GBP 1.36. While the Beta Interface was in use Corelogic reported monthly transaction counts, kept records and allowed Landmark to inspect them; after the API, Landmark would monitor transactions itself. All licences under the agreement ended on termination.[1]
The specification described how the Beta Interface works: SurveyHub uses DOM manipulation to find DataWeb’s HTML fields and set their values, performing “actions relating to the use of DataWeb that would otherwise be undertaken manually” while keeping DataWeb’s login security. In practice a “listener” installed on the DataWeb server copies case data into SurveyHub, and RPA bots log in as a human would to type data back.[1]
The dispute
A 2019 deed of variation extended the term to six years, so it ended on 14 March 2022. Neither party realised it had expired until September 2023; afterwards they traded on the same terms and later under a licence until 2025 with higher service fees. Corelogic, which grew to approximately 50 or more SurveyHub clients, still used the Beta Interface. It sued for the costs of running it, chiefly Azure virtual machines and staff time. Landmark accepted it had taken no steps to develop an API but argued it was never obliged to provide one, and relied on waiver and estoppel because Corelogic did not complain until December 2023.[1]
Decision or outcome
Recorder Andrew Singer KC gave judgment for Corelogic on 2026-07-27.[1]
- The API was an obligation. Reading the agreement as a whole, Landmark had to develop and provide the API. The judge noted it would be “most uncommercial” for the development fee to be payable with no certainty of a result, and refused to admit pre-contract negotiations to narrow the obligation. The deed of variation moved the deadline to 13 March 2022.[1]
- No waiver or estoppel. Corelogic never abandoned the requirement, the agreement’s no-waiver clause applied, and Landmark showed no detrimental reliance.[1]
- Losses after expiry were recoverable. Because both parties knew Landmark could not refuse Corelogic access, access would have continued through the API after the agreement ended, so the costs of continuing with the Beta Interface flowed from the breach.[1]
- Virtual machine costs awarded, labour costs not. It was common ground the virtual machines would not have been needed with an API; the court awarded GBP 332,405.44 after deducting January to March 2022. The labour claim failed because no timesheets or other records were kept, even after the claim was threatened.[1]
- No declaration for the future. The court declined to declare a right to indemnity for future losses, since a new agreement might yet provide an API.[1]
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
The case is a rare published judgment on the commercial terms behind indirect access: a third-party application whose bots operate a platform on behalf of the platform’s licensed users. The platform owner first treated the access as unauthorised, then licensed it for a per-transaction fee with reporting and inspection rights, with a supported API as the intended long-term route.[1] Compare the user-based approach in SAP UK v Diageo. The judgment did not decide the competition law point; it only records that Landmark did not challenge Corelogic’s assertion in 2015.
Lessons learned
- Third-party tools that log in to a platform as users, including RPA bots, need an access right from the platform owner; here access began without one and ended in a paid agreement. The 2016 agreement followed a cease and desist letter about unauthorised access.[1]
- Per-transaction access fees with self-reported counts and inspection rights are a form of indirect access licensing; keep the records. Corelogic reported monthly transaction counts and had to let Landmark inspect its records.[1]
- A promise to replace a temporary interface with a supported API is an obligation, and the cost of running the workaround can be recovered when it is not met. The court awarded the virtual machine costs the API would have avoided.[1]
- Track the term of access agreements; this one expired in 2022 without either party noticing until 2023. The parties carried on trading on the same terms after expiry.[1]
- Keep contemporaneous records of costs you may claim; the unrecorded labour claim failed. The judge found the labour figures “impressionistic” and unproven.[1]