Does the address registered on the microchip have to match that of the address on the dogs kennel club registration papers?

I move around a fair bit so my dogs are registered in my parents address, but I would like to change their microchip to my current address in case they ever got lost.

Is it ok if the addresses don't match?

It doesn't matter at all; what matters is that the chip address is one where people own/know the owner of the dog.

Thanks Jeangenie that's good to know.

Definitely as Jeangenie says.  Don´t forget to keep all phone numbers up to date.  There´s also an option for a third (emergency) phone number which could be your own mobile number.

In a court of law the registered owner and address are the legal owners on the microchip paperwork.

In a court of law the registered owner and address are the legal owners on the microchip paperwork.

That's incorrect. It can be taken into account as extra evidence in a dispute, but who legally owns a dog is determined by who paid for it, where it lives, who pays for food, vets bills, whose vet it is registered with, who carries out the day to day care of it etc.

I received a call from an RSPCA kennels many years ago. The dog had been bought in as a stray in a dreadful state. I told the officer the address of the people that bought her which was only round the corner. But they advised me that they really didn't want her to go back there and because I was the owner on the microchip I was the legal owner and indeed they took the person to court.
So I have always thought the information was correct.

It's not true; a microchip is only proof of identity; ownership is a different issue. The 'keeper' of the dog and the 'owner' of the dog are also different matters.

No it's definitely not true that a microchip proves ownership. Trevor Cooper the dog law solicitor goes into all of this at his dog law seminars. I've been to one, I know MsTemeraire has been to one, probably other CD members as well.

However, there may well have been other circumstances in the case you mention. If a dog is seen to have been abandoned, for instance, then the owner loses ownership of it. Trevor Cooper used as examples that if somebody ties a dog up outside a shop, goes in for the shopping and later comes back out again, then the dog is legally still theirs. However if they tie a dog up outside a shop and leave it there for many hours despite having finished the shopping and left the shop, then it has been abandoned. If somebody leaves a dog with a friend and asks them to look after it for a specified period, say 2 weeks, then do not come back for it for 2 months, then again they have abandoned the dog and have lost ownership. So this could have something to do with it, also the state of the dog could have been used as evidence in court that the owner was not suitable to keep a dog.

I can only go by what the court said when I was handed back custody of the dog in question, because I was the owner on the microchip.