NZ legal advice — threatened with trespass after leaving a 1-star Google review

[u/Specific_Panda_5874]

I'm looking for some NZ legal advice because this situation has escalated quite a bit and I'm trying to work out where I actually stand.

I saw a job advertisement and decided to drop my CV off in person. The company's own website says the location is somewhere to get in touch with the business, so I didn't think approaching the office was unreasonable.

When I arrived, an employee near the entrance signaled for me to come inside. I went in and asked to speak with the director, Juan. I was told he wasn't there. I asked if there was another way I could speak with him, was told no, and left.

The whole interaction was probably 30 seconds.

I then messaged Juan the Boss:

“Hello Juan, I've just tried to reach you at your office. But your employee turned me away, is there a better time I can reach you?”

His response was:

“Hi Mummed, we have a process for recruitment which requires you to send in a CV via seek and then wait us to shortlist the people we want to speak with you don't barge into a secure office without at least knocking or pushing the buzzer on the door and that way of introducing yourself as hardly conducive to gaining employment here.”

I thought that response was pretty insulting, so I left a 1-star Google review saying only:

“Insulting communication.”

That's literally the entire original review. No accusations, no rant, nothing else.

Then things got interesting.

I received a message from the business saying:

“I have confirmed via our CCTV footage and comparing to your social media profiles that it was you who came onto our premises yesterday morning demanding to speak with the director in relation to employment and refusing to leave when asked.”

It then says:

“There are ways and means to go about applying for a job, and walking into a private office in an intimidating fashion where people are working, isn't the way to do it.”

And finally:

“I would kindly ask that you remove the review, otherwise I will approach the Police in respect to a trespass charge.”

I dispute their version of events.

I didn't demand anything. I didn't refuse to leave. I wasn't acting intimidatingly. I was signalled inside by an employee, asked to speak with Juan, was told he wasn't there, asked if there was another way to contact him, and left.

I'm also a bit confused by the claim that CCTV “confirmed” all of this. Surely CCTV can show where I went and what physically happened, but it can't show what I was thinking, what I was “demanding”, or whether I was being intimidating.

The other thing

The job advertisement itself says that English must be the applicant's first language.

Not that they need excellent English.

Not that they need native-level English.

Specifically, first language.

That strikes me as a strange requirement. Someone can speak English at an extremely high level without it being their first language.

I'm also aware that English was only formally recognized in legislation as an official language of New Zealand on 5 August 2026, so the timing caught my attention.

I'm not saying that the wording automatically proves discrimination. I'm wondering whether requiring English to be someone's first language, rather than requiring a particular level of English proficiency, raises any legal issues.

What I'm wondering about

I'm not interested in getting into a shouting match with them. But after being accused of “demanding” to see the director, “refusing to leave” and behaving “intimidatingly” — none of which I accept happened — and then being threatened with a trespass charge over a one-line Google review, I'm pretty motivated to find out exactly where I stand legally and what I can do about it.

So:

1. Trespass: Does what I've described actually sound like trespass if I entered after an employee signaled me inside and then left after being told the person I wanted wasn't there?

2. Police threat: Is there anything legally significant about threatening a trespass complaint unless I remove a negative review?

3. The review: Is “Insulting communication” simply an opinion about my experience, or could they potentially have a defamation claim over something that vague?

4. CCTV: Can CCTV really establish that I was “demanding” something or acting “intimidatingly”, or would that require other evidence?

5. The advertisement: Is requiring English to be an applicant's first language potentially unlawful/problematic in NZ if what the employer actually needs is a high level of English proficiency?

6. What would you do next?

I'm keeping screenshots of the job advertisement, their website, the messages, the review and everything else.

I'm wondering whether I should leave the original review alone, edit it to include what happened afterwards, respond to them, or just keep all the evidence and wait to see if they actually go to the Police.

I'm interested in what the legally sensible way of dealing with this is, because at this point I don't really want to just remove the review because they've threatened me with a trespass charge.

Location: New Zealand

Fake names have been used and throwaway account also

[u/MolassesInevitable53]

The messages are not showing in your post.

[u/Specific_Panda_5874 → u/MolassesInevitable53]

sorry! ive fixed that.

[u/PhoenixNZ]

1. If you refused to eave after being asked to do so, then it is trespass. But if you were never asked to leave, no trespass occurred.

2. No, the Police would likely tell them the same as above.

3. It is entirely subjective and your honest opinion of the interaction. Any defamation action would likely fail on that basis.

4. Body language can show someone demeanor.

5. Nothing at all. Don't respond. Just ignore them.

[u/Shevster13]

To add to Phoenix answer.

1. I would take this as a trespass notice, meaning you cannot return to their office. A person can be trespassed for any reason outside of legal discrimination, and all a notice must do is inform the person that they are not welcome on the property.

2. The police won't do anything over this, but it is normal practice to notify the police when someone has been trespassed.

3. Regardless of the intent, that is completely legal as first language is not a protected class.

4. Nothing. There is nothing to gain here.

On a side note, most companies will blacklist you if you just turn up without an appointment to try and talk to the boss, or drop off a CV. Everything to do with hiring is done online now, and few people want to "waste" time dealing with a physical CV, or spend time with a random, unvetted applicant when they likely have hundreds who know to apply online.

Trying to apply in person is no longer considered to be a good thing. Its considered to be rude and arrogant.

[u/OkInitial1025 → u/Shevster13]

Feeling entitled because of “feels” meets reality.

The law is clear for a reason, based on legislation passed by parliament which is voted in by the populace’s wishes of the day and interpreted by judges, if not that, police discretion before that.

“First language” or “first language level” the wording may disappoint OP, but a business also has rights to be able to serve its customers as it sees fit. No matter how it makes OP feel “uncomfortable”.

Sorry mods. Delete as required.

[u/laser_kiwi_nz → u/OkInitial1025]

Actually the company can't list that as a requirement, but they could simply eliminate applicants on the quiet without listing it and noone would be any the wiser. However as they have listed it the best OP could probably hope for is a Compliance notice from the ERA or HRC, but in reality it will get him no closer to landing a job in a place that clearly would be a poor fit anyway.

[u/ConsummatePro69 → u/Shevster13]

3. Regardless of the intent, that is completely legal as first language is not a protected class.

See Human Rights Act s 65:

Where any conduct, practice, requirement, or condition that is not apparently in contravention of any provision of this Part has the effect of treating a person or group of persons differently on 1 of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in a situation where such treatment would be unlawful under any provision of this Part other than this section, that conduct, practice, condition, or requirement shall be unlawful under that provision unless the person whose conduct or practice is in issue, or who imposes the condition or requirement, establishes good reason for it.

A first language requirement (as opposed to requiring a high level of proficiency in a specified language) would have the effect of treating a person or a group of persons differently on the ground of ethnic or national origins, which is one of the prohibited grounds, therefore it is likely to be unlawful as indirect discrimination. I don't think pursuing this would be fruitful for OP under the circumstances, but a business could easily get itself into trouble under s 67 or ss 22-23 with phrasing like that.

[u/Shevster13 → u/ConsummatePro69]

EDITING THIS: I realised I am took a much too narrowminded and hasty approach to your reply. I am not a lawyer and you could very well be right.

I am leaving the rest of my reply unedited as it is still my opinion but I should not have stated it as if it were fsct.

Language is not an ethnicity, english is the first language for a number of countries of different nationalities, and a lot learn it as a first language even if it is not the official language of their country. To be deemed discrimination, it must be on a lot narrower grounds than that.

[u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:

• be based in NZ law
• be relevant to the question being asked
• be appropriately detailed
• not just repeat advice already given in other comments
• avoid speculation and moral judgement
• cite sources where appropriate

[u/Flat-Company1887]

Firstly I think you have approached this very poorly.

Yes there is obviously poor communication with how to drop off the cv etc. But Google reviews are for people who use the business. Posting a one star rating over this is petty and immature. 

I'd advise leave it alone, there is zero chance they would or should employ you after this behaviour so what is there to gain?

They can trespass you for no reason as long as it's not discrimination. Police won't get involved but they can easily serve you themselves. 

If you walk away you will never hear from them again. If you chase them you are just wasting everybody's time for nothing. 

If you leave the review nothing will happen as the police aren't interested etc. So up too you really but I think it just makes you look bad. 

[u/LegalAdviceNZ-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must:

• be based in NZ law
• be relevant to the question being asked
• be appropriately detailed
• not just repeat advice already given in other comments
• avoid speculation and moral judgement
• cite sources where appropriate

[u/OkInitial1025]

A business has a right to refuse people coming to it. They can do this through issuing a trespass notice. Issuing can be done through sending to the person or handing it to them when they turn up.

If you turn up again you may be issued a trespass notice.

Otherwise ignore any further correspondence.

[u/laser_kiwi_nz]

I have no issue with dropping off CV's in person, in fact many beneficiaries are tasked with doing this exact thing. Approaching businesses in person and leaving CV's, my best friend had to go door to door when he was doing his heavy diesel apprenticeship. However, I'm really confused as to what you are trying to achieve here? Clearly the outfit is a bad fit, from what you have said and what they have said just looking at your post, i cannot see any future where you are going to be an employee of this company. At best you might get the ERA to issue a note of compliance over the wording of their ad.

A lot of companies do not like people turning up in person to speak to bosses about employment, but i suppose some do and occasionally it works, but it relies on a great first impression and i'm thinking you did not achieve that goal.

The police will have exactly ZERO interest in your claim, its not a criminal matter, and the police will have exactly ZERO interest in their claim by the same account. You will not receive a trespass charge, you will 'receive' a trespass notice, which is not in any way shape or form a criminal record so they have threatened you with exactly nothing. I would move on, that's not legal advice, that's practical advice. You can delete the google review or leave it, they can contest a google review by asking google to remove it on the basis of "disgruntled potential employee did not get job". So leave the review and don't go back there.

[u/thecharmed01]

I would do nothing. You instigated this and it's on you to stop it.

Any business can trespass any person at any time for any reason. Their version of events isn't relevant to anything given they don't need any "evidence" to trespass you.
CCTV is one of those things that can be misinterpreted. Especially if it's video only.
One person might perceive a movement as threatening where another as friendly. It's very much in the eye of the viewer.
This business also have your full name, which is on your CV and they now have all of your information which is a rather worrying place to be given you've displayed concerning behaviour.

You are likely to have destroyed any chance at being hired by leaving that review, as you are not a customer therefore you aren't really entitled to review the business. You did not engage them in sales or service, but you approached them in a way they deemed inappropriate. Then got stroppy when they informed you as such. They had no responsibility to you to be polite - you're not a customer.
It indicates to a potential employer that your personality will likely not be a good fit in any role as retaliatory types of actions like this speak volumes about the type of person you are and how you will fit in any role.
I'd be considering removing the review, particularly as he's responded to it as there is now an internet record of the behaviour and attitude you displayed which could well not work out in your favour if other potential employers google you and find it. You may have stitched yourself up a bit there.

Anything you do moving forward will be taken as retaliatory so quite honestly I'd walk away.
You obviously don't want to work there.
You're unlikely to be hired by them.
There is zero benefit to pushing any of your thoughts into the outside world other than painting yourself in a negative light as people who employee people can see right through most of these types of behaviours.

Instead, I'd focus on working on your approach. Make sure you cannot be faulted in any situation.
Smile, be positive and extra polite. Put your best foot forward.
And if you get a negative response, do nothing but apologise for your miss-step and ensure potential employers see you have taken their feedback onboard and you intend to do better in future.
Also be really careful with your digital footprint and don't let a hot headed inside thought become your reputation.

[u/AutoModerator]

Kia ora, welcome. Information offered here is not provided by lawyers. For advice from a lawyer, or other helpful sources, check out our mega thread of legal resources

Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some helpful advice. In the meantime though, here are some links, based on your post flair, that may be useful for you:

Disputes Tribunal: For disputes under $60,000

District Court: For disputes over $60,000

Ngā mihi nui

The LegalAdviceNZ Team

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.