He said those occasions were trivial, including taking a blood test, helping to calm Ms X down after a procedure, and prescribing her morphine.
"They are the most fleeting of attendances that a doctor could ever have in a public hospital setting."
Ms X complained to the hospital after the doctor got into a sexual relationship with her former partner, known as Ms A.
Her concern was that the doctor was able to access her medical files, which the doctor assured her she had not done.
Mr Waalkens said his client had known Ms A for a long time before Ms X was a patient, and it was not a case of a doctor forming a sexual relationship with a patient.
Rather, Ms X had laid a complaint in the context of "angst and upset" over the break-up of her relationship with Ms A.
Mr Waalkens said he did not want to trivialise the patient's concerns, but said her suffering was something that "goes with the territory" of a break-up.
The doctor and the patient's former partner remain in a relationship.
Mr Waalkens said the Medical Council committee's recommendation that the doctor should undergo monthly counselling, at her own cost, was disproportionate.
"This is a matter that is akin to black mark and it can have quite serious consequences for practitioners," he said.
There had been no other complaints against the doctor and she had an excellent reputation as a specialist.
Mr Waalkens argued the court had the authority to review the committee's decision, saying it was open to the court to determine if the committee had been reasonable in its decision.
The Medical Council, represented by lawyer Nick Russell, is opposed to a judicial review.
The hearing before Justice Robert Dobson continues.
