However, in early June, the family heard that a neighbour had taken a cat - matching the missing moggy's description - to a veterinarian around the time he went missing.
The furry feline was then passed on to an apparent pet rescue service, listed as MN Incorporated, before it was adopted by another family.
Volunteers from MN asked the new adoptive family to return the cat however they refused, saying both they and their other cat had since bonded with him.
The family then lodged a case with the tribunal to get their pet returned on the grounds that MN was liable for his loss.
MN had initially put the pet in a foster home as the cat required care, but when it sold the cat to a third party it would "generally constitute conversion, unless MN can establish a defence".
Conversion was where someone intentionally asserted rights or dominion over goods that was inconsistent with the owner's rights.
MN claimed the vet was told by a neighbour that the cat was left behind by someone who had moved away.
Tribunal referee Elizabeth Paton-Simpson found the cat was not abandoned but that animal welfare needed to be considered.
MN was not an organisation approved to sell, rehome or destroy animals, however it submitted it had "exceeded the requirements" in taking steps to find its original owner.
Paton-Simpson disagreed, and while she accepted MN acted in good faith as a volunteer organisation, she found it didn't take reasonable steps to find the owner in this case.
"Even if the neighbour's story about the owner moving away had been true, it would not follow that the owner abandoned the cat. It is not uncommon for a pet to find its way to the old house after the owners move," she wrote in her decision.
MN did not contact the neighbour to ask for the new address, which they should have, she said.
She found MN liable for the loss of the cat.
However, as a third party who was not involved in the proceedings now had possession of the family cat, she couldn't order it be returned.
The family did not wish to pursue the new owners and they didn't want damages nor did they want a different cat for free.
"She just wanted her cat back, even though she accepted that this could now not happen."
Although the claim was dismissed, she hoped the family could take some comfort that MN would now do things differently in the hope that it would never happen again.
