Legal claims by a London-based bus driver have been rejected on a technicality by a judge following confusion over the correct name of his employer.Ja Jeyasundra believed he was employed by RATP DEV London, which was revealed to be a French-owned holding company. But it was eventually decided at a Watford Employment Tribunal preliminary hearing that Mr Jeyasundra had been employed by London Sovereign since 2007 at the Edgware Garage and not by the French company.He was dismissed for gross misconduct after London Sovereign accused him of breaching company policy over the use of mobile phones and of breaching health and safety issues.He denied the allegations.As a result, Mr Jeyasundra made legal claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and harassment and alleged the firm failed to make adjustments to help him cope with his illness.Tribunal Judge Palmer said the Tribunal had first to decide the correct name of the defendant before deciding whether the case could go ahead.The confusion arose after Mr Jeyasundra said he had worn a uniform with the French name on it. Some documents had also been prepared for the Tribunal hearing under the French name, it was said.London Sovereign opposed the legal claims and claimed they were out of date because they had been registered beyond the Tribunal’s three-month deadline.The Tribunal was told that Mr Jeyasundra had signed contracts both in 2007 and 2008 referring to his employer as London Sovereign, but London Sovereign argued that the name on the early Conciliation Certificate was different to that in the Tribunal claim form and that it had not been a minor error.Judge Palmer said that the letters before the Tribunal referred to London Sovereign but also had the name RATP DEV London.Mr Jeyasundra told the Tribunal that he thought there had been a change in his employer which he had not been told about. He also said said he been given Citizens Advice help but he had been told he had to pay £200 if he wanted further help. “I could not afford the £200,” he said.Judge Palmer said the Tribunal accepted that Mr Jeyasundra had been confused but added that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider his claims further under the circumstances.It is not known if Mr Jeyasundra is to try and make a new legal claim under London Sovereign’s name.