Dave Moorhouse’s Jack Russell terrier, Rocky, was stolen in 2007 and he was informed earlier this year that the microchip provider had discovered details of his dog’s new address.
However, they refused to pass on the animal’s whereabouts claiming it would breach the Data Protection Act.
Last week a court refused Mr Moorhouse’s request for a court order compelling Anibase, the microchipping database, to reveal the name and address of the new owners.
Mr Moorhouse, 56, from Huddersfield, West Yorks, said: “Whatâ€™s the point of having your pet microchipped if you canâ€™t get him back?”
The dog went missing in January 2007 from his home.
Mr Moorhouse, a self-employed bricklayer, said: â€œI secured him on his lead in the backyard and went to Leeds. When I came back Rocky was missing and I presume he was stolen because someone would have had to have let him off his lead.â€
He added: â€œAll that next week I was in the nearby woods in looking for him.
â€œI put an ad in the local paper and I reported his theft to the vets where Rocky had been microchipped.â€
Three years later, in April 2010, Mr Moorhouse received a letter from Anibase asking if he wanted them to update their database with the name and address of the dogâ€™s new owners.
It is believed they had requested that their details be added onto the database.
Mr Moorhouse said: â€œI told Anibase that I didnâ€™t want to transfer ownership because my dog had been stolen.
â€œI asked them for the name and address of the people who had my dog but they wouldnâ€™t give me the details.â€
Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.
A judge at Huddersfield County Court ruled that the matter was outside his jurisdiction.
Steven Wildridge, managing director of Animalcare, the company that runs Anibase, said: â€œThis is not a choice, itâ€™s an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding.”
He added: “This is a common problem that can occur if a dog is involved in a marital dispute or it is lost or stolen. We encourage people to sort things out amongst themselves but if they refuse there is not much we can do. We would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case.”
In January this year the Kennel Club recommended to Defra that all puppies are microchipped before being sold on.
The average cost of implanting a microchip is Â£25-30 although vets charges do vary.
Caroline Kisko, Secretary of the Kennel Club, said: â€œMicrochipping is a method of permanent identification and does not provide proof of ownership. If somebodyâ€™s dog has been stolen and an ownership dispute arises then this needs to be reported to the police, who can demand that details of the dogâ€™s location be disclosed, where appropriate.”