The father of a 10-year-old girl yesterday lost his legal battle to keep his daughter in Malta after appeal judges concluded that Richard Bridge had abducted her and should have sought custody in England.

Mr Bridge, through his lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici, said they were taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights; however, in the meantime the authorities still had the power to send the girl back to England.

The development comes just over a month after the Constitutional Court ruled that the little girl should be allowed to stay in Malta because sending her back to England would violate her right to a family life.

The presiding judge had spoken to the girl and established that she wanted to stay with her father but he also concluded that the mother’s track record with her children was “unfortunately not good”.

However, in their ruling, the appeal judges held it was not for the Maltese courts to decide the custody dispute between Mr Bridge and Ms Lee, as this matter fell within the competence of the English courts as the courts of the child’s habitual residence.

The return of the child did not detract from Mr Bridge’s rights over the child but meant that the English courts would decide the matter.

The court added that it might well be the case that if Mr Bridge were to file custody proceedings in England (as he ought to have done at the outset thus sparing his child this ordeal) then he would be awarded custody if this was in the best interests of the child.

In his arguments, Mr Bridge said he had made a mistake when he brought the child to Malta without the mother’s consent but stressed that he had not abducted her but merely moved here after her mother abandoned the child.

He argued before the Constitutional Court that he had now severed all ties with England and that if he returned, he would be subject to criminal prosecution for child abduction.

But the judges said he only had himself to blame if he faced criminal charges and could not use this argument to persuade the court to decide in his favour.

The first court had found in his favour on the basis that her removal from Malta at this stage would cause her undue stress and undermine her right to family life.

But the Constitutional Court said that these reasons were insufficient for finding a violation of the right to respect for family life.