Sex worker meets dashing client, they get chatting, become lovers, and she leaves the industry behind for a better life in his arms.

But, unlike the classic that launched Julia Roberts, the Canberra tale does not end happily ever after.

Instead, the love affair found itself in the Federal Circuit Court in a squabble over assets.

The woman argued her career was hampered when she gave up sex work for the man.

She claimed the loss meant she was entitled to a slice of his $2.15 million asset pool.

But a judge has rejected her bid, finding the two were not in a de facto relationship.

The pair met in 1999 when the woman was a sex worker and the man one of her clients.

They began to discuss personal matters and discovered they had a mutual interest in horses and country life.

They became friends and then lovers.

About early 2002, the woman gave up sex work, which she claims was due to the man, and started work in another job.

The pair split briefly in 2002 and she claimed she began to spend most nights at the man's home soon after.

But the man told the court she had never lived with him and the relationship had only been a friendship.

The relationship broke up in 2011 and she launched the action for 25 per cent of their combined assets – worth about $272,000 after deducting her interest in a property.

There was no contest the parties had never shared an economic life.

The court heard they never had a joint bank or other account, never jointly bought property, and the majority of expenses when they stayed together had been covered by the man.

The woman asked the court to find that her career had been adversely affected by the relationship.

She argued the man had been the reason she had given up sex work and lost a subsequent job.

But Judge Jim Brewster, in a judgment published this week, threw out the case.

"I am not satisfied that the respondent was responsible for the applicant giving up her employment as a sex worker or giving up, or being dismissed from, her subsequent jobs," Judge Brewster wrote.

"I accept that the applicant did not work for a time but do not accept that this was at the request of the respondent.

"I am not satisfied that the applicant has been adversely affected financially in any way by the relationship."

The judge said that, even if he found they had been in a de facto relationship, he still would not have ordered the man give up part of his property interests.

"Her contributions were not such as to justify the court making orders altering the interest of the respondent in his property in her favour.

"I therefore dismiss the applicant's application."