Berth Charterparty vs Port Charterparty: Laytime, NOR and WIBON Explained

Port and Berth Charterparties

Port and Berth Charterparties are two closely related but legally different forms of voyage charter arrangement. Both may describe the same loading or discharging operation, and both may involve the same terminal, cargo, port authority, agents, stevedores, and berthing schedule. The critical difference is the contractual destination. In a Port Charterparty, the contractual destination is the port. In a Berth Charterparty, the contractual destination is the berth or a specific loading or discharging place inside, near, or connected with the port.

This distinction is not a matter of wording only. It affects the moment when the ship becomes an arrived ship, the moment when the Notice of Readiness may be validly tendered, the point at which laytime can begin, and the party that carries the commercial risk of delay before the ship reaches the berth. A few words in the fixture recap, such as “one safe berth”, “one safe port”, “one safe berth, one safe port”, “New York, one safe berth”, or “one safe berth New York”, may therefore decide whether a costly waiting period is for the Shipowner’s account or for the Charterer’s account.

In everyday chartering negotiations, the difference can appear technical. In a congested port, however, the difference becomes highly commercial. A ship may arrive within port limits, anchor in the customary waiting area, tender a Notice of Readiness, and wait for several days before the berth becomes accessible. If the charter is a true port charter and the Notice of Readiness is valid, time may begin to count against the Charterer even though the ship is not alongside. If the charter is a berth charter and no protective wording is included, the same waiting period may remain at the Shipowner’s risk until the ship reaches the named or nominated berth.

A Port Charterparty is generally more favorable to Shipowners because the ship can become an arrived ship when it reaches the agreed port area and is at the effective disposition of the Charterer, provided the other requirements for a valid Notice of Readiness are satisfied. A Berth Charterparty is usually more favorable to Charterers because the ship must normally reach the berth before the ship can be treated as arrived for laytime purposes. This is why Shipowners frequently seek protective expressions such as WIBON, WIPON, time lost waiting for berth to count as laytime, or similar wording.

The legal and practical importance of port and berth charterparties can be summarized in three questions. First, what is the contractual destination? Second, where must the ship be before the Notice of Readiness can be validly given? Third, who bears the risk of delay caused by berth congestion, bad weather, port restrictions, terminal breakdown, lack of cargo readiness, or waiting for another ship to complete operations? These questions should be answered from the charterparty wording as a whole, not from one expression read in isolation.

Why the Difference Between Port and Berth Charterparties Matters

The difference matters because laytime does not start merely because a ship is near the port, or because the Master is willing to load or discharge, or because the ship has sent arrival messages to agents. Laytime normally starts only when the ship has become an arrived ship, is actually ready in all relevant respects, and has tendered a valid Notice of Readiness in accordance with the charterparty. The first requirement, arrival at the contractual destination, is where port and berth charterparties differ most sharply.

In a port charter, the ship does not have to be alongside the berth before becoming arrived. The ship must reach a position within the port where waiting ships commonly lie, or a position treated by the charterparty as sufficient, and must be immediately and effectively at the disposal of the Charterer. In a berth charter, the ship must normally reach the particular berth or the nominated loading or discharging place. Until that happens, the ship has not completed the contractual approach to the destination, and the Notice of Readiness may be premature unless special wording changes the result.

The distinction also affects demurrage. Demurrage is not simply a penalty for slow cargo work. It is the agreed compensation for detention of the ship after laytime has been used. If laytime has not started because the ship has not arrived under a berth charter, there may be no demurrage during the waiting period unless the charterparty contains wording that brings that waiting time into account. This is why the wording of waiting-time clauses and arrival clauses is commercially decisive.

Port and berth charterparties also influence operational behavior. Shipowners need to know whether a Notice of Readiness should be tendered at anchorage, at the pilot station, at the customary waiting place, or only after berthing. Charterers need to know whether congestion at the terminal is their risk or the Shipowner’s risk. Brokers need to draft the recap carefully because a fixture may contain both berth-style and port-style expressions. Lawyers and claims handlers must later reconcile those expressions with the laytime clause, demurrage clause, berth nomination clause, and any incorporated port or terminal rules.

Berth or Port Charter?

Berth or Port Charter? is one of the most important questions in voyage chartering because the answer controls when the ship is treated as having arrived. The answer depends on the true construction of the charterparty. The wording must be considered commercially and as a whole. The name of the port, the position of the words safe berth, the laytime clause, the Notice of Readiness provision, the nomination wording, and any special waiting-time wording all matter.

If the destination is stated as a named berth, named terminal, named jetty, named sea line, named buoy, or a berth to be nominated by the Charterer, the charter is likely to be treated as a berth charter unless the wider wording points clearly in another direction. If the destination is a named port and the berth is only the place where cargo operations will later take place, the charter is more likely to be a port charter. The order and structure of the words can be important. A phrase that reads like “one safe berth, port X” may point toward a berth destination, while a phrase that reads like “port X, one safe berth” may point more naturally toward the port as the destination, although no phrase should be read mechanically without the rest of the charterparty.

The commercial background is also relevant. Some fixtures are made for a terminal controlled by the Charterer, where the berth itself is central to the bargain. Other fixtures are made for a general port call, where the final berth may be determined by the port authority or terminal operator. In the first situation, the berth may be the real contractual destination. In the second, the port may be the destination and the berth may be only the place inside the port where cargo work is eventually performed.

Disputes often arise because fixture recaps are compressed and prepared quickly. Brokers may use abbreviations such as 1 SB, 1 SP, 1 SBP, 1 safe berth always afloat, or 1 safe port/1 safe berth. These expressions are familiar in practice, but they can create uncertainty when combined with detailed printed clauses. A recap may say one thing, the printed form may say another, and rider clauses may modify both. The safest approach is to state expressly whether the charter is intended to be a Port Charterparty or a Berth Charterparty, and to align the Notice of Readiness, laytime, and waiting-time wording accordingly.

How to Identify a Berth Charterparty

A charterparty is more likely to be a berth charterparty where the commercial destination is a particular berth or a berth to be selected by the Charterer. The ship is not merely ordered to proceed to a port. The ship is ordered to proceed to a particular working place. In that case, arrival at the port may not be enough. The ship must reach the berth before the voyage stage is complete for laytime purposes, unless a clause such as WIBON or a waiting-time clause changes the position.

Common indicators of a berth charter include a named berth, a named terminal, a named jetty, a named loading arm, a named buoy, a named sea line, or wording that gives the Charterer the right to nominate the berth as the destination. The phrase “one safe berth” can also indicate a berth charter, particularly where the berth wording comes before the port name or where the rest of the charterparty treats the berth as the place to which the ship must proceed before tendering Notice of Readiness.

In a berth charter, berth congestion is usually a serious risk for Shipowners. If the berth is occupied by another ship, blocked by weather, closed because of terminal equipment failure, or temporarily unavailable due to operational scheduling, the Shipowner may have to wait without laytime running. This result may seem harsh, but it follows from the bargain that the ship has not yet reached the agreed destination. Shipowners therefore commonly negotiate clauses shifting that risk back to Charterers.

How to Identify a Port Charterparty

A charterparty is more likely to be a port charterparty where the ship is ordered to a named port rather than to a particular berth. In that situation, the ship may become an arrived ship once the ship reaches the port, or an agreed waiting place treated as part of the port arrival regime, and is ready and at the Charterer’s effective disposal. The berth is then the later cargo-working location, not the contractual destination for arrival purposes.

Port charter wording often gives Shipowners stronger protection against congestion. If the ship arrives at the port and is unable to berth because all berths are occupied, the waiting time may count under the laytime regime once a valid Notice of Readiness has been tendered. However, this depends on the precise charterparty terms. A ship must still satisfy readiness requirements. A premature, invalid, or incorrectly served Notice of Readiness can prevent laytime from starting even where the charter is a port charter.

In a port charter, Charterers cannot assume that they are free from waiting-time exposure simply because the ship is not alongside. Once the ship has arrived at the contractual destination and is at their disposal, congestion caused by terminal operations, berth queues, or cargo scheduling may fall within their risk. This is one of the reasons port charters are preferred by Shipowners and resisted by Charterers in congested trades.

Mixed Wording and the Need for Clear Drafting

Many charterparty disputes arise from mixed wording. A fixture may contain a berth-style destination but a port-style Notice of Readiness clause. Another fixture may contain a port destination but also a provision requiring nomination of a berth before loading. Some forms include printed clauses written for one type of charter but are later amended by rider clauses drafted for another type. In these circumstances, the charterparty must be read as a commercial document, giving effect to the parties’ bargain as far as possible.

Clear drafting avoids expensive argument. If the parties intend laytime to start when the ship arrives at the port even if the berth is unavailable, the charterparty should say so. If the parties intend the ship to be arrived only when safely alongside the berth, the charterparty should say so. If the parties want waiting time to count only after a fixed period, that period should be stated. If Sundays, holidays, bad weather, strikes, terminal breakdowns, or other exceptions are to apply during waiting time, the clause should say whether they apply in the same way as ordinary laytime exceptions.

Small drafting differences can produce large financial consequences. A ship waiting ten days outside a congested grain terminal, coal terminal, ore berth, oil berth, or fertilizer berth may incur major losses. Whether those ten days count as laytime, demurrage, damages for detention, or nothing at all may depend on a few words in the charterparty. For this reason, the port/berth classification should be checked at the negotiation stage, not after the ship has already arrived.

Shipowner’s and Charterer’s Obligations in Various Types of Charter

Shipowner’s and Charterer’s obligations in various types of charter differ according to whether the contract is a voyage charter, time charter, trip time charter, consecutive voyage charter, contract of affreightment, port charter, or berth charter. The charterparty is the document that allocates the risks, costs, earnings, responsibilities, and liabilities between the parties. It is not only a transport agreement; it is also a commercial risk-allocation instrument.

In a voyage charter, the Shipowner undertakes to carry an agreed cargo from an agreed loading place to an agreed discharging place in exchange for freight. The Shipowner usually bears the marine adventure, including the cost of operating the ship, crew, insurance, maintenance, and the performance of the carrying voyage, subject to the charterparty terms. The Charterer usually undertakes to provide the cargo, nominate any permitted loading or discharging place, pay freight, load and discharge within the agreed laytime, and pay demurrage if laytime is exceeded.

In a time charter, the Shipowner provides the ship and crew for a period, while the Charterer directs the commercial employment of the ship within agreed limits. The Charterer pays hire, gives voyage orders, supplies or pays for bunkers depending on the wording, and selects lawful and safe ports, berths, places, routes, and cargoes. The Shipowner remains responsible for the ship’s seaworthiness, crewing, maintenance, class, insurance, and technical management, subject to the charterparty.

In a berth charter, the division of obligations becomes particularly important because the berth is the contractual destination. The Shipowner must bring the ship to the berth and tender Notice of Readiness only when the ship is in the required position and ready in accordance with the charterparty. The Charterer must nominate or provide the berth where required, ensure that the berth is safe if a safe berth warranty applies, have cargo and documents ready, and perform loading or discharging within the agreed laytime once it starts.

In a port charter, the Shipowner’s arrival obligation is usually satisfied at the port rather than at the berth, provided the ship reaches the correct position, is ready, and is at the effective disposal of the Charterer. The Charterer may then bear the risk of berth congestion after a valid Notice of Readiness has been given. The Charterer must still arrange cargo operations, coordinate with terminals, supply instructions, and avoid delays that fall within the Charterer’s sphere of responsibility.

Shipowner’s Main Obligations in Voyage Chartering

The Shipowner’s first obligation in voyage chartering is to provide the agreed ship or a permitted substitute ship if the charterparty allows substitution. The ship must correspond with the contractual description, including name, class, capacity, cargo gear, holds, dimensions, flag, and other material particulars. If the ship is misdescribed in a way that affects the chartered service, the Charterer may have remedies depending on the seriousness of the breach and the wording of the contract.

The Shipowner must exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy where such duty applies. Seaworthiness is not limited to the hull and machinery. It can include the ship’s cargo worthiness, holds, hatch covers, pumping arrangements, certificates, crew competence, and ability to perform the voyage safely and legally. For a berth charter, the ship must also be able to reach, lie at, and depart from the nominated berth if the berth is safe and suitable for that ship.

The Shipowner must proceed to the agreed destination with reasonable dispatch, unless the charterparty provides otherwise. Delay before arrival can affect laycan, cancellation, cargo readiness, and terminal scheduling. If the ship arrives after the cancelling date, the Charterer may have a cancellation right depending on the wording. If the ship arrives before the laydays, the Charterer is not normally obliged to provide cargo before the agreed period unless the charterparty says otherwise.

The Shipowner must tender a valid Notice of Readiness when the ship has reached the required place and is ready to load or discharge. In a berth charter, this usually means the ship must be at the berth. In a port charter, this may mean the ship is within the port or at a recognized waiting place where the charterparty allows notice. If the Notice of Readiness is invalid, laytime may not start, and a costly waiting period may remain unrecoverable.

The Shipowner must care for the cargo during the sea passage and must perform the voyage in accordance with the charterparty, bill of lading obligations, and applicable law. The Shipowner must also cooperate with port formalities, cargo operations, safety requirements, and reasonable instructions that fall within the charterparty. However, the Shipowner is not required to accept unsafe orders, unlawful cargoes, prohibited destinations, or instructions that place the ship outside the agreed employment.

Charterer’s Main Obligations in Voyage Chartering

The Charterer’s first obligation is to provide the agreed cargo in the agreed quantity and condition at the agreed loading place. If the Charterer fails to provide cargo, provides less cargo than contracted, or delays cargo presentation, the Shipowner may have claims for deadfreight, damages, demurrage, or detention depending on the charterparty and the stage of the voyage.

The Charterer must nominate ports, berths, or places within the permitted range and must do so in time for the ship to proceed without unnecessary delay. Where the charterparty requires a safe port or safe berth, the Charterer’s nomination must comply with that obligation. Safety is judged commercially and practically. A place may be unsafe because of navigational danger, insufficient depth, bad holding ground, swell exposure, political risk, ice, poor mooring arrangements, unsafe loading equipment, or inability to depart safely after completion.

The Charterer must load and discharge within the agreed laytime. Laytime is the period allowed to the Charterer for cargo operations without additional payment beyond freight. If the Charterer uses more than the agreed laytime, demurrage is usually payable. If cargo operations are completed faster than the agreed laytime and the charterparty provides for despatch, the Charterer may earn despatch money. The calculation depends on the exact laytime wording, exceptions, weather provisions, working-day definitions, and Notice of Readiness provisions.

The Charterer must pay freight and other sums in accordance with the charterparty. Freight may be payable on shipment, on signing or releasing bills of lading, on completion of loading, on delivery of cargo, or at another agreed time. If freight, demurrage, deadfreight, or detention remains unpaid, the Shipowner may have contractual remedies, including lien rights if properly drafted and enforceable.

The Charterer must cooperate in cargo documentation, port instructions, customs clearance, terminal arrangements, and compliance with relevant cargo regulations. In berth and port charterparties, practical cooperation is essential because a delay in one document, permit, berth instruction, cargo declaration, fumigation certificate, customs release, or terminal approval can affect the entire laytime and demurrage position.

Shipowner’s Main Obligations in Time Chartering

In a time charter, the Shipowner’s main duty is to provide and maintain the ship for the agreed period. The ship must be delivered at the agreed place, within the agreed delivery window, and in the condition required by the charterparty. The Shipowner remains responsible for crew, technical management, maintenance, class, insurance, and the basic nautical operation of the ship.

The Shipowner must keep the ship in an efficient state for the chartered service. If the ship breaks down, fails to perform, loses class, lacks required certificates, or becomes unable to comply with lawful employment orders, the Charterer may be entitled to place the ship off-hire or claim damages depending on the charterparty terms. The off-hire clause is central to the time charter bargain because hire is paid for the use of the ship’s time.

The Shipowner must comply with the Charterer’s lawful employment instructions. The Charterer controls the commercial use of the ship, but the Master remains responsible for navigation and safety. If an instruction is unsafe, unlawful, outside trading limits, prohibited by sanctions, inconsistent with the charterparty, or dangerous to the ship, the Shipowner may refuse compliance.

The Shipowner must ensure the ship can perform the agreed cargo work. This may involve cargo hold cleanliness, hatch cover condition, cargo gear readiness, pumping ability, temperature control if applicable, ventilation, certificates, and compatibility with the nominated cargo. If the ship is not ready or fit for the contractual employment, the Charterer may suffer delay, loss of sub-fixture, cargo claims, or operational disruption.

Charterer’s Main Obligations in Time Chartering

In time chartering, the Charterer must pay hire punctually in accordance with the charterparty. Hire is the price paid for the commercial use of the ship over time. Late payment can produce severe consequences, including withdrawal rights where the charterparty provides such a remedy. Time charter hire obligations are therefore among the most sensitive payment obligations in commercial shipping.

The Charterer must employ the ship only within the agreed trading limits and for lawful cargoes. The Charterer must not order the ship to an unsafe port, unsafe berth, unsafe anchorage, prohibited area, war risk area outside the charter terms, ice-bound port, sanctioned trade, or place where the ship may be exposed to unreasonable danger. The Charterer’s safe port and safe berth obligations are especially important because time charterers control the commercial itinerary.

The Charterer is often responsible for bunkers, port charges, canal dues, pilotage, towage, agency fees, cargo expenses, and other voyage-related costs, depending on the charterparty. The Shipowner usually pays crew wages, insurance, maintenance, and capital costs. This allocation is one of the basic commercial differences between voyage and time chartering.

The Charterer must redeliver the ship at the agreed place, within the agreed period, and in the condition required by the charterparty, fair wear and tear excepted. Late redelivery, early redelivery, redelivery outside range, or redelivery without proper notices can lead to claims. The Charterer must also settle final hire, bunker balances, agency disbursements, and any outstanding liabilities.

Obligations in Berth Charterparties

In a berth charterparty, the Shipowner’s obligation is not complete merely because the ship has reached the port. The ship must normally proceed to the berth that is named, nominated, or otherwise contractually required. The Shipowner bears the risk of ordinary delay before reaching that berth unless the charterparty transfers that risk to the Charterer. This makes berth charterparties sensitive to congestion, weather, berth occupation, terminal scheduling, and port authority restrictions.

The Charterer’s berth-related obligations depend on the wording. If the Charterer promises a safe berth, the berth must be prospectively safe when ordered and must remain safe for the ship to approach, use, and leave, subject to the legal limits of the obligation. If the Charterer has control over the berth, the Charterer must normally arrange its availability for cargo operations. If the berth is controlled by a port authority or third-party terminal, the Charterer may still carry the contractual risk if the charterparty places that risk on the Charterer.

Berth charterparties should be drafted with special care in trades where congestion is common. Coal, grain, ore, fertilizer, crude oil, petroleum products, cement, steel, and project cargo terminals can all experience berth queues. If the parties do not state who bears waiting time, the result may be decided by the port/berth classification, the wording of the Notice of Readiness clause, and any time-lost clause.

Obligations in Port Charterparties

In a port charterparty, the Shipowner must bring the ship to the port and place the ship at the Charterer’s effective disposal in the manner required by the contract. The ship may be arrived even though not yet berthed. This allows laytime to start earlier than in a berth charter, provided a valid Notice of Readiness is tendered and all readiness conditions are met.

The Charterer’s obligation in a port charter is to arrange cargo operations within the port and to bear the risk of delays that fall within the charterparty allocation once the ship has validly arrived. Berth congestion may therefore become the Charterer’s problem rather than the Shipowner’s problem. However, laytime exceptions may still protect the Charterer if the wording applies. Bad weather, strikes, holidays, Sundays, working-time limitations, terminal regulations, or other exceptions may reduce or suspend counting depending on the clause.

A port charter does not eliminate all Shipowner risk. The Shipowner may still lose time if the ship arrives outside port limits where the charterparty does not permit Notice of Readiness, if the ship is not physically or legally ready, if free pratique or customs clearance is required and not obtained, if the Notice of Readiness is defective, or if the ship cannot be regarded as at the Charterer’s effective disposal.

Berth Laytime Rules and Charterparty Laytime Rules

In some ports and terminals, local berth rules, terminal regulations, loading protocols, or published laytime procedures are used in daily operations. These may regulate berth turns, cargo readiness, documents, working hours, berth allocation, loading rates, safety requirements, and statements of facts. However, such rules do not automatically override the charterparty. The charterparty remains the primary contract between Shipowner and Charterer unless the local or terminal rules are expressly incorporated or clearly made part of the parties’ bargain.

This distinction is important. A terminal may apply its own berth rules for operational management, but the financial calculation between Shipowner and Charterer depends on the charterparty. If the charterparty says laytime starts six hours after valid Notice of Readiness, terminal practice cannot normally replace that wording unless the charterparty incorporates the terminal rules with sufficient clarity. Similarly, a port’s internal berth rotation system may decide when the ship can berth, but it does not necessarily decide who pays for the waiting time.

Where berth rules are incorporated, the parties should examine whether those rules are consistent with the charterparty. If there is a conflict, the charterparty should ideally state which document prevails. Problems arise when a charterparty incorporates a terminal agreement, port regulation, or berth rule without explaining whether it replaces, supplements, or merely supports the laytime clause. A poorly drafted incorporation can create uncertainty over Notice of Readiness, waiting time, weather exceptions, shifting, pumping time, stoppages, strike delays, and completion of loading or discharging.

For Shipowners, the risk is that a local berth rule may be used to postpone laytime or exclude waiting periods that would otherwise count under the charterparty. For Charterers, the risk is that a broad incorporation of port rules may create unexpected responsibilities, costs, or timing consequences. Both parties should therefore ensure that charterparty laytime rules, port rules, berth rules, and terminal conditions are aligned before the fixture is concluded.

Notice of Readiness in Port and Berth Charterparties

The Notice of Readiness is the formal statement that the ship has arrived at the required place and is ready to load or discharge. In a berth charterparty, the Master will normally tender Notice of Readiness only after the ship is at the berth unless the charterparty permits earlier notice. In a port charterparty, Notice of Readiness may usually be tendered when the ship reaches the port or a contractually permitted waiting place and is ready.

A valid Notice of Readiness depends on three broad elements. The ship must be at the correct contractual place. The ship must be physically and legally ready. The notice must be served in the manner and at the time required by the charterparty. Failure in any of these elements can make the notice invalid and may prevent laytime from starting. This is why berth and port classification must be checked before the Master tenders notice.

Readiness is not limited to the ship’s physical ability to load or discharge. The ship may also need required documents, certificates, free pratique, customs clearance, cargo hold cleanliness approval, tanks readiness, pumping readiness, or other clearances depending on the cargo and charterparty. Some clauses allow Notice of Readiness to be given whether in free pratique or not, whether customs cleared or not, whether in berth or not, or whether in port or not. These clauses are designed to reduce the risk of technical delay, but they must be read carefully.

Risk Allocation in Port and Berth Charterparties

Port and berth charterparties allocate risk differently because they define arrival differently. In a berth charter, the Shipowner usually carries the risk of reaching the berth. In a port charter, the Charterer more often carries the risk of berth congestion after the ship has arrived at the port and tendered a valid Notice of Readiness. Neither rule is absolute because the charterparty may alter the allocation.

The main risks include berth congestion, weather preventing berthing, swell at exposed sea berths, lack of cargo, lack of documents, port closure, strikes, terminal breakdown, pilot shortage, tug shortage, draft restrictions, tide windows, daylight navigation restrictions, and customs or health formalities. Each risk must be mapped against the charterparty wording. A delay caused by lack of berth may be treated differently from a delay caused by bad weather. A delay caused by port authority order may be treated differently from a delay caused by cargo unreadiness. A delay at a berth may count differently from a delay before arrival.

Clauses such as WIBON, WIPON, time lost waiting for berth, reachable on arrival, always accessible, always afloat, safe berth, weather working days, and laytime exceptions are all part of the same risk-allocation structure. They should not be treated as isolated expressions. A charterparty may be commercially coherent only when these clauses are read together.

Commercial Consequences of Choosing a Berth Charterparty

A berth charterparty may suit Charterers who control terminal scheduling and want the ship to be at the berth before time starts. It may also suit trades where the berth is technically important, such as specialized terminals, private jetties, tanker berths, restricted draft berths, or cargoes requiring special loading equipment. From the Shipowner’s perspective, however, a berth charterparty can expose the ship to unpaid waiting time before berthing.

Shipowners accepting a berth charterparty should consider whether the freight rate compensates for berth waiting risk. Shipowners should also consider protective wording. A berth charter without WIBON, without an effective waiting-time clause, and without a clear reachable-on-arrival obligation may leave the Shipowner carrying congestion risk. In a strong freight market this may be acceptable only at a premium. In a weak market Shipowners may accept the risk, but should at least understand it.

Charterers choosing a berth charterparty should also be careful. If the charterparty includes strong waiting-time wording, the practical benefit of a berth charter may be reduced. If the berth is warranted safe or reachable on arrival, the Charterer may face liability even before cargo operations begin. A berth charter is not automatically safe for Charterers unless the rest of the wording supports that allocation.

Commercial Consequences of Choosing a Port Charterparty

A port charterparty may suit Shipowners because it enables earlier tender of Notice of Readiness and earlier commencement of laytime. It is particularly useful where port congestion is common and where the Shipowner does not control berth allocation. In such cases, it may be commercially fair for the Charterer to bear the waiting risk because the Charterer has arranged the cargo, terminal, and commercial program.

For Charterers, a port charterparty can be expensive if the berth is congested, the terminal is slow, cargo is not ready, or local formalities delay berthing after the ship has arrived. Charterers should therefore negotiate laytime exceptions, waiting-time limits, weather protections, strike provisions, and terminal responsibility wording where appropriate. Charterers should also maintain strong coordination with shippers, receivers, agents, port authorities, and terminals to avoid avoidable waiting.

The port charter structure should be matched to the commercial trade. In high-volume dry bulk trades where ships often wait at anchorage, port charter wording can transfer substantial time exposure to Charterers. In specialized berth trades, a port charter may not reflect the real operational dependency on a particular berth. The best drafting is the drafting that matches the commercial reality of the operation.

Practical Drafting Checklist for Berth and Port Charterparties

Before fixing a voyage, Shipowners, Charterers, and brokers should review the following points carefully. The goal is not only to avoid legal disputes but to make the commercial allocation clear before the ship sails.

1. Contractual Destination: State clearly whether the destination is the port, the berth, the terminal, the jetty, the sea line, the buoy, or another specific place.
2. Notice of Readiness: Confirm where and when the Master may tender Notice of Readiness, and whether notice may be given before berthing.
3. Waiting Time: Decide whether time lost waiting for berth counts as laytime, demurrage, detention, or not at all.
4. WIBON and WIPON: Use these expressions deliberately and ensure they match the intended risk allocation.
5. Safe Berth and Safe Port: Clarify whether the Charterer warrants safety of the port, berth, approach, departure route, anchorage, or all of them.
6. Reachable on Arrival: Consider whether the berth must be reachable when the ship arrives and what happens if it is occupied or inaccessible.
7. Berth Availability: State whether berth congestion is for the Shipowner’s account or Charterer’s account.
8. Weather and Exceptions: Decide whether weather, Sundays, holidays, strikes, port closure, or terminal breakdown exceptions apply during waiting time.
9. Terminal Rules: Identify whether berth rules, port rules, or terminal regulations are incorporated and whether they override charterparty laytime wording.
10. Shifting Costs and Time: Clarify who pays for shifting from anchorage to berth, from one berth to another berth, or from berth to waiting area.
11. Laycan and Cancellation: Coordinate arrival wording with laydays and cancelling provisions so that early arrival, late arrival, and berth delay are properly addressed.
12. Documents and Clearances: State whether free pratique, customs clearance, hold approval, tank approval, or other formalities are required before Notice of Readiness.
13. Demurrage and Despatch: Confirm the demurrage rate, despatch rate if any, and whether time on demurrage remains subject to exceptions.
14. Back-to-Back Terms: Where there is a chain of contracts, align the head charter, sub-charter, sale contract, terminal contract, and bill of lading position as far as possible.

Common Mistakes in Berth and Port Charterparty Drafting

One common mistake is using safe berth language without deciding whether the charter is intended to be a berth charter or a port charter. A safe berth warranty deals with the safety of the berth. It does not automatically decide when the ship becomes an arrived ship. The arrival question still depends on the destination and Notice of Readiness wording.

A second common mistake is relying on abbreviation alone. Terms such as 1 SB, 1 SP, 1 SBP, WIBON, and WIPON are useful but can be dangerous when not connected to a clear laytime clause. The parties should not assume that every broker, agent, operator, or arbitrator will understand the commercial intention in the same way.

A third common mistake is failing to coordinate printed forms and rider clauses. A printed form may contain a standard Notice of Readiness clause, while the rider clause may contain a different waiting-time mechanism. If both clauses remain in the charterparty without priority wording, the parties may later dispute which clause governs. The rider clause should be drafted to amend or prevail over inconsistent printed wording where that is the intention.

A fourth common mistake is treating terminal rules as if they automatically determine laytime. Terminal rules may control operational berthing and cargo procedures, but the financial consequences between Shipowner and Charterer usually require clear contractual incorporation. If the parties want terminal rules to decide laytime, they should say so expressly and identify the relevant rules.

A fifth common mistake is overlooking the cause of the delay. A berth may be unavailable because another ship is working, because the port is closed by bad weather, because the cargo is not ready, because port authority has restricted movements, or because the berth is unsafe. These causes may produce different results under the same charterparty. Claims should therefore be supported by a detailed statement of facts, port log, weather records, correspondence, notices, and agent reports.

Berth Charterparty Claims and Evidence

Berth charterparty disputes are usually won or lost on documents. The most important evidence includes the fixture recap, charterparty terms, Notice of Readiness, statement of facts, port log, berth lineup, anchorage records, pilot records, tug records, weather reports, terminal messages, emails from agents, cargo readiness notices, customs documents, and time sheets. These documents should show where the ship was, when the ship arrived, when notice was tendered, whether the ship was ready, why the ship could not berth, and when cargo operations started and finished.

Shipowners should ensure that the Master tenders Notice of Readiness in the correct form and repeats notice if there is any doubt about validity. A repeated Notice of Readiness may not cure every problem, but it can protect the position if the first notice is later challenged. Shipowners should also instruct agents to record accurately whether the berth was occupied, whether the ship was prevented by congestion, weather, port order, or other reason, and whether the ship was at the usual waiting place.

Charterers should preserve evidence showing why time should not count. This may include weather interruptions, holiday periods, strike notices, terminal restrictions, berth closure notices, invalid readiness, incomplete documents, failed inspections, or the ship’s inability to load or discharge. Charterers should also check whether the Notice of Readiness was tendered too early, at the wrong place, outside permitted hours, or before the ship was legally ready.

Both parties should avoid casual admissions in operational emails. A message saying that the berth is unavailable, the ship is accepted, or time will count may later be relied upon in a claim. Operational teams should communicate clearly but carefully, and should distinguish between practical port arrangements and contractual laytime agreement.

Best Practical Approach for Shipowners and Charterers

The best approach is to decide the risk allocation before the fixture is concluded. If the Shipowner is expected to bear the risk of reaching the berth, the freight should reflect that risk. If the Charterer is expected to bear congestion risk, the charterparty should contain clear port charter wording or effective waiting-time wording. If the berth is central to the cargo operation, the charterparty should clearly state who nominates it, who warrants its safety, who pays for waiting, and when laytime starts.

Shipowners should avoid assuming that arrival at port is enough in every charterparty. Charterers should avoid assuming that no time counts before berthing. The answer is always in the charterparty wording, read against the commercial setting. A well-drafted charterparty does not leave this question to argument after the ship has waited for days at anchorage.

For practical chartering purposes, the safest drafting is direct drafting. If the parties intend a port charter, say so. If the parties intend a berth charter, say so. If waiting time is to count, say when it begins and how it is calculated. If exceptions apply, say which exceptions apply. If local berth rules are incorporated, say whether they override the charterparty. Clear words are cheaper than arbitration.

A Berth Charterparty is a charterparty in which the contractual destination is not merely the port, anchorage, or wider port area, but the particular berth, dock, jetty, terminal, loading point, discharging point, sea line, buoy, or other specific place where cargo operations are to be carried out. The distinction is extremely important in voyage chartering because it determines when the ship becomes an arrived ship, when a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR) can be tendered, when laytime starts, and which party carries the commercial risk of waiting for an available berth.

In practical chartering language, a berth is the precise location at which the ship is expected to load or discharge. It may be a named terminal berth, a numbered quay, a private jetty, a coal loader, an ore berth, a grain elevator, a tanker berth, a submarine pipeline, a buoy mooring, or another nominated cargo-working place. A berth may be stated in the charterparty at the time of fixture, or it may be nominated later by the Charterers under the terms of the contract. Once the charterparty is properly construed as a berth charterparty, the ship is not normally treated as having arrived for laytime purposes until the ship has reached the berth and is ready to load or discharge.

The legal and commercial result is clear: in a pure Berth Charterparty, the risk of delay before the ship reaches the berth will usually fall on the Shipowner unless the charterparty contains words that transfer that risk to the Charterers. Congestion, waiting turns, adverse weather preventing berthing, terminal scheduling problems, port authority restrictions, or the temporary occupation of the berth by another ship may therefore prevent laytime from starting. This is why Shipowners often seek protective wording such as WIBON (Whether In Berth Or Not), time lost waiting for berth to count as laytime, reachable on arrival, or other clauses designed to reduce exposure to waiting time.

It is not essential that the berth be physically named in the fixture recap or in the printed charterparty form. A charterparty referring to “1 Safe Berth” (1 SB), “one safe berth”, or “one berth” may still be treated as a berth charterparty if the true contractual destination is the berth to be nominated by the Charterers. Once that berth is nominated, the nominated berth becomes the place the ship must reach before the normal laytime machinery can operate, unless the contract contains clear wording to the contrary.

The classification of the charterparty is not decided by labels alone. The whole fixture must be read commercially. Words such as “1 Safe Berth, New York” may point to a berth charterparty because the berth is the destination and New York simply describes the port within which the berth is located. Conversely, words such as “New York, 1 Safe Berth” may point more strongly toward a port charterparty because New York is stated first as the wider contractual destination, with the berth being nominated later as the place of cargo operations. The exact wording, punctuation, printed form, rider clauses, fixture recap, and commercial background must be considered together.

Meaning of Berth Charterparty in Voyage Chartering

A Berth Charterparty is most commonly discussed in the context of voyage charters, where freight is earned for the carriage of cargo from one place to another and laytime measures the free time allowed for loading and discharging. The question is not simply where the ship will eventually work cargo, but where the ship must arrive before laytime can begin.

Under a berth charterparty, arrival at the port itself is not enough. Even if the ship has reached the port limits, reported to the port authority, dropped anchor at the customary waiting area, obtained inward clearance, and is physically ready to load or discharge, the ship may still not be an arrived ship if the agreed contractual destination is the berth and the ship has not yet reached that berth. Until the ship reaches the berth, a Notice of Readiness may be premature unless the charterparty contains clauses allowing notice to be tendered earlier.

This can have a major financial impact. In a congested bulk port, coal terminal, grain terminal, ore terminal, tanker terminal, or container berth, a ship may wait several days or even weeks before a berth becomes available. If the charterparty is a berth charterparty and contains no protective clause in favor of the Shipowner, that waiting time may not count as laytime and may not generate demurrage. The ship is detained commercially, but the time risk remains with the Shipowner.

For Charterers, a berth charterparty can be attractive because it delays the start of laytime until the ship is actually at the place where cargo operations can begin. For Shipowners, it can be dangerous unless the freight rate has been calculated with that risk in mind or the contract contains suitable waiting-time wording. The difference between a berth charterparty and a port charterparty may therefore affect freight negotiations, demurrage exposure, laycan planning, terminal coordination, and overall voyage profitability.

Berth Charterparty and Port Charterparty

Charterparties are frequently classified as either Port Charterparties or Berth Charterparties. The difference is central to the law of laytime and demurrage.

Port Charterparty

In a Port Charterparty, the contractual destination is the port. The ship may become an arrived ship when the ship has reached the relevant part of the port, is within the port limits or customary waiting area as required by the applicable legal test, and is at the immediate and effective disposition of the Charterers. The ship does not necessarily need to be alongside the berth. Once the ship has arrived at the port in the legally required sense and is ready, a valid NOR may usually be tendered, subject to the wording of the charterparty.

In commercial terms, a port charterparty generally places more waiting-time risk on the Charterers. If the ship reaches the port and is prevented from berthing because the terminal is congested, the berth is occupied, or the port authority delays berthing, laytime may still start after a valid NOR and the expiry of any notice period. If laytime is exceeded, demurrage may become payable.

Berth Charterparty

In a Berth Charterparty, the contractual destination is the berth. The ship normally becomes an arrived ship only when the ship has reached the nominated or specified berth. If the ship is waiting at anchorage because the berth is unavailable, the ship may not yet be an arrived ship. Unless protective wording applies, laytime may not run during that waiting period.

The commercial consequence is that the Shipowner normally bears the risk of pre-berthing delay. This is why a berth charterparty should never be treated as a small drafting detail. In a market where port congestion, weather delays, strikes, terminal maintenance, tidal restrictions, draft limitations, and cargo readiness problems are common, the berth/port distinction can decide whether a waiting period becomes the Shipowner’s loss or the Charterer’s demurrage exposure.

Berth Charterparty Vs Port Charterparty

The difference between a Berth Charterparty and a Port Charterparty can be summarized by asking one question: what is the contractual destination that the ship must reach before it can be treated as arrived?

If the answer is the port, the contract is more likely to be a port charterparty. If the answer is the named or nominated berth, the contract is more likely to be a berth charterparty. The distinction affects the timing of NOR, the start of laytime, the allocation of congestion risk, and the calculation of demurrage.

Shipowners usually prefer a Port Charterparty because the ship can become an arrived ship before reaching the berth, provided the ship is at the appropriate place within the port and is effectively available to the Charterers. Charterers may prefer a Berth Charterparty because laytime does not normally begin until the ship is at the berth and capable of cargo operations, unless the contract says otherwise.

In The Finix, the court explained the difference between a berth charter and a port charter by focusing on the destination described in the charterparty. Where the destination is a named berth, or where there is an express right to nominate the berth as the destination, the charterparty is generally a berth charterparty. Where the destination is a wider port area and the Charterers merely have an implied right to nominate the berth or discharging place inside that area, the ship may be treated as arrived when the ship reaches the relevant part of the wider port area, not only when the ship later reaches the cargo-working berth.

This creates uncertainty in borderline wording. A fixture described as “1 Safe Berth, New York” may indicate that the berth is the contractual destination. A fixture described as “New York, 1 Safe Berth” may indicate that New York is the contractual destination and that the berth is a later operational nomination within the port. The legal answer depends on the true construction of the charterparty, not only on the order of words.

When the ship reaches a port and must wait its turn before cargo operations can start, the consequences depend on the charterparty wording. In a berth charterparty, that waiting time may not count as laytime unless a clause transfers the risk. In a port charterparty, laytime may start while the ship is waiting if the ship has become an arrived ship and a valid NOR has been tendered.

Some charterparties deal with the problem by providing that waiting time will count only after a fixed period, such as forty-eight hours, or from the commencement of cargo operations, or from the time the ship would have berthed but for congestion. These clauses must be read carefully because small differences in wording can produce different results.

Notice of Readiness in a Berth Charterparty

The Notice of Readiness (NOR) is the master’s formal notice that the ship has arrived at the contractual destination and is ready to load or discharge. In a berth charterparty, the contractual destination is usually the berth, which means that NOR is normally valid only when the ship has reached the berth and is physically and legally ready to perform cargo operations.

Readiness has both physical and legal aspects. The ship must be ready in fact: holds must be clean and suitable for the cargo, cargo gear must be available if required, pumps or cranes must be ready where relevant, and the ship must be capable of receiving or delivering cargo. The ship must also be legally ready: free pratique, customs clearance, port health formalities, and other regulatory requirements may affect the validity of NOR depending on the charterparty wording and local practice.

Clauses such as WIBON, WIFPON, and WICCON are often inserted to permit NOR to be tendered even though the ship is not yet in berth, not yet in free pratique, or not yet customs cleared. These clauses are not automatic solutions. Their effect depends on the wording used, the reason the ship is prevented from proceeding, the availability of the berth, the readiness of the ship, and the legal approach applied to the charterparty.

In berth charterparty disputes, premature NOR is a common source of disagreement. If NOR is invalid, laytime may not start, even if the parties mistakenly proceed on the assumption that time is running. Some charterparties contain clauses allowing a previously invalid NOR to become effective when the ship later becomes ready or reaches the berth. Without such wording, a fresh valid NOR may be required.

Safe Berth (SB) in Charterparty Terms

A Safe Berth (SB) is a berth that the ship can reach, use, and leave without being exposed to dangers that cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship. The berth must be safe not only for loading or discharging while alongside, but also for approach, mooring, cargo operations, and departure if the charterparty obligation extends that far.

The safety of a berth is not limited to the physical condition of the quay. It may involve depth, tidal range, swell, currents, weather exposure, fendering, mooring arrangements, berth pocket maintenance, dredging, underwater obstructions, turning basin, tug availability, access channel, terminal equipment, shore-side operations, and local port restrictions. A berth may be unsafe for one ship but safe for another, depending on size, draft, air draft, maneuverability, cargo type, and operational requirements.

Charterers who nominate a safe berth usually undertake that the berth will be prospectively safe when the order is given. The obligation is assessed at the time of nomination or order, although later developments may still matter if they were foreseeable or if Charterers fail to act after learning of a danger. If an unexpected abnormal occurrence makes the berth unsafe, the result may differ from a case where the danger was ordinary, foreseeable, or part of the berth’s normal characteristics.

In The Terneuzen, damage at a berth inside an otherwise safe port showed that berth safety can matter independently of general port safety. A port may be safe in general, yet a particular berth may be unsafe. Conversely, a berth clause may sometimes limit the Charterers’ obligation to the berth itself and may not necessarily extend to every approach to the port unless the wording supports that wider interpretation.

The APJ Priti emphasized that berth safety should be considered when the Charterers give the order. The Erechthion also illustrates that a movement ordered through port authority arrangements may still raise questions of charterers’ responsibility where the movement is treated as part of the chartered service or as an order for charterparty purposes.

If a berth requires the ship to lie aground, take the ground, or rest on a mud berth during loading or discharging, the safety wording must be examined with particular care. If the Shipowner agrees to such an operation, the bottom must usually be suitable and must not damage the hull, propeller, rudder, or underwater fittings. The fact that a ship is permitted to ground does not mean the Charterers are free to nominate a dangerous bottom.

WIBON (Whether In Berth Or Not)

WIBON (Whether In Berth Or Not) is a clause intended to protect the Shipowner where the ship has arrived at or near the port but cannot proceed immediately to the berth. In simple terms, WIBON is designed to allow the ship to tender NOR and start the laytime machinery even though the ship is not yet in the berth.

In a voyage charterparty, WIBON can reduce the harshness of a berth charterparty by shifting part of the waiting-time risk back to the Charterers. Its practical purpose is to prevent the Shipowner from losing time merely because the berth is occupied, congested, unavailable, or inaccessible for reasons that should commercially fall within the Charterers’ sphere.

The clause must not be misunderstood. WIBON does not always convert every berth charterparty into a port charterparty for all purposes. Its legal effect depends on the wording of the charterparty and the circumstances preventing the ship from berthing. If the berth is unavailable because another ship is occupying it, WIBON may operate differently than where the berth is physically available but the ship cannot reach it because of fog, swell, ice, port closure, or navigation restrictions.

In the Notos dispute, the ship could not discharge at the only available sea line because of swell and because another ship was using the berth. The situation was different from a simple congestion case because the weather element was a substantial cause of delay and was outside the Charterers’ control. This illustrates why WIBON must be applied to the facts, not treated as a universal answer.

The Kyzikos dispute involved a GENCON charterparty and WIBON wording, where the ship was prevented from reaching a named berth because of fog, although the berth itself was available. The dispute demonstrated the difficulty of applying WIBON where the problem is not berth occupancy but physical or navigational inability to reach the berth. The legal treatment of WIBON has therefore been shaped by careful distinctions between berth unavailability, berth inaccessibility, and general conditions preventing movement.

For practical drafting, Shipowners who want strong protection should avoid relying on WIBON alone. They should consider combining WIBON with clear language dealing with congestion, weather, port closure, berth occupancy, waiting place, valid NOR from anchorage, free pratique, customs clearance, and time lost waiting for berth. Charterers, on the other hand, should ensure that the clause does not make them responsible for delays that were never intended to be at their risk.

Time Lost Waiting for Berth

A time lost waiting for berth clause is designed to deal with the period during which the ship is delayed because the berth is not available. The common idea is that time which would otherwise fall outside laytime should nevertheless count as loading or discharging time, or as laytime, when the ship is waiting only because it cannot get into berth.

In a berth charterparty, the clause is particularly important because the ship is not normally an arrived ship before reaching the berth. Without the clause, the Shipowner may lose the waiting time. With a properly drafted clause, the waiting time may count against the Charterers even before the ship has technically become an arrived ship.

The phrase must be read with laytime exceptions. The older approach sometimes treated time lost clauses as overriding exceptions, so that time counted even during Sundays, holidays, bad weather periods, or other excluded periods. Later authority corrected that approach. If the clause says time lost waiting for berth counts as laytime, the time is generally treated as laytime, subject to the same exclusions and exceptions that would have applied if the ship had already been in berth, unless the charterparty clearly provides otherwise.

The Darrah is important because it clarified that the calculation should not punish Charterers beyond what the laytime scheme actually provides. If the ship is notionally treated as being in berth, then periods that would not have counted at berth should not normally count merely because the ship is waiting outside. This reinforces the need for precise drafting: if the parties want all waiting time to count without interruption, they must say so clearly.

Unavailability of Berth

Unavailability of berth occurs when the ship is ready to proceed to the berth but the berth cannot receive the ship. This may be due to congestion, another ship occupying the berth, terminal breakdown, shore equipment failure, cargo not ready, storage restrictions, labor shortages, port authority scheduling, draft restrictions, or weather-related terminal closure.

In a berth charterparty, berth unavailability can prevent the ship from becoming an arrived ship. Therefore, unless the charterparty contains protective wording, the waiting period may not count as laytime. This is why berth availability is not merely an operational issue; it is a contractual risk allocation issue.

The charterparty may deal with berth unavailability in several ways. It may state that time lost waiting for berth counts as laytime. It may allow NOR to be tendered from the usual waiting place whether in berth or not. It may require the berth to be reachable on arrival. It may provide a limited waiting period before time starts to count. It may require Charterers to nominate an alternative berth. It may allocate shifting expenses and time. It may also provide exceptions for weather, strikes, force majeure, port closure, or events beyond the Charterers’ control.

If the berth remains unavailable for a prolonged period, commercial pressure increases quickly. Shipowners may face lost employment opportunities, extra bunkers, crew cost, port dues, and schedule disruption. Charterers may face cargo accumulation, terminal problems, receivers’ pressure, or sales contract exposure. Because both sides can suffer, good charterparty wording should specify what happens when the berth is not ready on arrival.

Reachable on Arrival and Berth Charterparty Risk

The expression reachable on arrival is often used to place a strong obligation on Charterers to provide a berth that the ship can reach when the ship arrives. Where such wording applies, Charterers may be liable if the ship cannot proceed to the berth because the berth is congested or otherwise unavailable, even if the ship has not yet become an arrived ship in the ordinary berth charterparty sense.

The clause is commercially powerful because it addresses the central weakness of a berth charterparty from the Shipowner’s point of view. If the berth must be reachable on arrival, the Charterers cannot simply say that laytime has not started because the ship is not yet in berth. The obligation to provide a reachable berth may create a separate claim for damages where the ship is delayed by berth unavailability.

However, the clause should be carefully drafted. It should specify whether the berth must be reachable physically, legally, commercially, or operationally. It should also clarify whether weather, swell, draft, tides, port authority restrictions, strikes, congestion, and terminal breakdown are included or excluded from the Charterers’ responsibility. A short phrase can carry heavy financial consequences.

Laycan, Early Arrival and Berth Charterparty

The laycan period is the agreed laydays and cancelling range during which the ship is expected to present for loading. If the ship arrives within laydays and before the cancelling date, the Charterers are generally expected to provide cargo and perform according to the charterparty. If the ship arrives before the opening of laydays, the position may be different.

In a berth charterparty, early arrival can create difficulties. If the ship arrives before laydays and the berth is unavailable, the Charterers may not be under an immediate obligation to berth the ship before the agreed laydays. The Shipowner may not be able to tender a valid NOR or start laytime unless the charterparty permits early NOR or unless Charterers accept the ship early. If cargo operations start before laydays, the charterparty may specify whether laytime starts immediately or only from the contractual opening date.

When the ship arrives within the laycan, the Charterers must be ready to perform unless protected by the charterparty terms. If the berth is not available and the contract is a berth charterparty without protective clauses, the Shipowner may still face the problem that laytime cannot start. For this reason, Shipowners should treat laycan wording, NOR wording, berth availability wording, and waiting time wording as connected parts of the same risk package.

Berth Nomination and Charterers’ Responsibility

In many fixtures, the berth is not named at the time of contract. Instead, the charterparty allows or requires the Charterers to nominate a berth later. Once Charterers nominate a berth, that nomination must comply with the charterparty. If the charterparty requires a safe berth, the nominated berth must be safe. If the charterparty requires a reachable berth, the berth must be reachable according to the contract. If the charterparty requires a berth capable of handling the cargo, the terminal must be suitable for the agreed operation.

A berth nomination should be clear, timely, and commercially workable. Late nomination can delay the ship. Ambiguous nomination can create uncertainty over NOR and arrival. A nomination of a berth that is unsuitable for the ship’s draft, length, beam, cargo gear, air draft, cargo type, or terminal restrictions may amount to a breach. If the nominated berth becomes unsafe or unavailable, Charterers may be required to nominate another berth if the contract and circumstances allow.

Shipowners should promptly question a doubtful nomination. If the master proceeds without protest to a berth that appears unsafe or unsuitable, disputes may later arise as to waiver, consent, causation, and mitigation. Charterers should obtain accurate terminal information before making a nomination, especially in ports with tidal windows, draft constraints, seasonal weather, river restrictions, berth maintenance, or complex port authority rules.

Shifting from Anchorage to Berth

Shifting time and shifting expenses are frequent practical issues in berth charterparties. A ship may tender NOR at anchorage under protective wording, then later shift to the berth for cargo operations. The charterparty should say whether shifting time counts as laytime, who pays shifting expenses, whether tugs and pilots are for Shipowners’ or Charterers’ account, and whether time is interrupted during movement.

In a pure berth charterparty, the ship may not have arrived until it reaches the berth, so shifting from anchorage to berth may simply be part of the approach voyage. In a charterparty with WIBON or time-lost wording, the ship may already be on laytime before shifting, in which case the treatment of shifting becomes financially important. If the clause is unclear, parties may argue over whether the movement is for the Shipowner’s account as navigation time or for the Charterers’ account as part of berth access.

Where Charterers order a shift from one berth to another, from anchorage to berth, or from berth to berth, the charterparty may make such shifting time and expenses for Charterers’ account. If the shift is caused by port authority order, terminal need, cargo sequencing, draft limitations, or receivers’ arrangements, the parties should consider whether the order is treated as a Charterers’ order or as an ordinary port requirement.

Berth Charterparty and Demurrage

Demurrage is the agreed compensation payable when laytime has been exhausted and the ship is detained by the Charterers beyond the allowed loading or discharging time. In a berth charterparty, demurrage cannot usually arise until laytime has started. If the ship waits outside the berth and laytime has not started, the Shipowner may suffer delay without demurrage unless the charterparty contains a clause that counts the waiting time or creates a damages claim.

This makes berth charterparty wording extremely important in demurrage calculations. A single week of waiting at a congested berth can be commercially serious. If demurrage is USD 20,000 per day, a seven-day difference in laytime commencement can represent USD 140,000. Whether that sum is recoverable may depend on whether the fixture is a port charterparty, berth charterparty, WIBON charterparty, reachable-on-arrival charterparty, or time-lost charterparty.

Once the ship reaches the berth and valid NOR has been tendered, laytime begins according to the notice period and laytime provisions. If laytime expires while cargo operations continue or while the ship remains detained for Charterers’ purposes, demurrage normally runs continuously unless the charterparty provides exceptions that also apply to demurrage. Many exceptions that interrupt laytime do not interrupt demurrage unless clearly drafted.

Berth Charterparty and Despatch

Despatch is the payment by the Shipowner to the Charterers when loading or discharging is completed in less than the allowed laytime, if the charterparty provides for despatch. In berth charterparty analysis, despatch can be affected by the same arrival and laytime questions that affect demurrage.

If laytime starts later because the ship is not an arrived ship until it reaches the berth, the calculation of unused laytime may be different. If time lost waiting for berth counts as laytime, the waiting period may reduce or eliminate despatch. If the charterparty provides that all time saved is payable as despatch, the financial result may differ from a clause providing despatch only on working time saved. Accurate laytime statements must therefore reflect the charterparty type and all relevant waiting-time clauses.

Berth Charterparty and Weather Delays

Weather is one of the most common reasons a ship cannot berth or cannot work cargo. In a berth charterparty, bad weather before berthing may prevent the ship from reaching the berth and may also prevent laytime from starting. Once the ship is in berth, weather exceptions may interrupt laytime if the charterparty provides that weather working days are used or that weather delays are excluded.

The difficult cases are those where the berth is free but the ship cannot safely enter because of fog, swell, wind, current, ice, draft, sea conditions, or port closure. If the charterparty contains WIBON, the question becomes whether WIBON applies when the berth is available but inaccessible because of weather. If the charterparty contains reachable-on-arrival wording, the question becomes whether the berth was contractually reachable or whether the weather event falls outside the Charterers’ risk.

For bulk cargoes, weather can also affect cargo operations after berthing. Rain may stop loading grain, fertilizer, cement, steel products, or other weather-sensitive cargo. High wind may stop crane operations. Swell may prevent safe work at open berths. If the charterparty defines laytime by weather working days, these interruptions must be carefully recorded in statements of facts and laytime calculations.

Berth Charterparty and Port Congestion

Port congestion is one of the main commercial reasons for disputes over berth charterparties. Congestion may arise from high cargo volume, shortage of berths, slow receivers, strikes, equipment breakdown, weather backlog, port authority restrictions, draft windows, cargo documentation delays, or customs problems. In a berth charterparty, congestion before berthing usually falls on the Shipowner unless the contract transfers the risk.

Shipowners therefore try to protect themselves through wording such as WIBON, time lost waiting for berth to count, reachable on arrival, or a port charter structure. Charterers may resist broad wording because they do not want to pay demurrage while the ship is waiting outside the berth for reasons beyond their practical control. The final contract often reflects the bargaining strength of the parties and the congestion history of the port.

In congested bulk trades, a modest difference in wording can change the economics of a voyage. If a ship waits ten days for a coal berth, iron ore berth, grain berth, or fertilizer berth, the question of whether that time counts may be worth more than the negotiated freight margin. A properly drafted berth clause is therefore a commercial risk management tool, not just a legal formality.

Berth Charterparty and Cargo Readiness

Cargo readiness can also affect berth availability. If the cargo is not ready when the ship arrives, the terminal may refuse to berth the ship, or the port authority may keep the ship at anchorage until cargo is available. In a berth charterparty, the Shipowner may argue that the delay is not merely berth congestion but a failure by Charterers to provide cargo. Charterers may argue that laytime has not started because the ship is not at the berth.

The outcome depends on the charterparty wording and the facts. If Charterers have an obligation to provide a reachable berth or cargo ready for loading within the laycan, the Shipowner may have a damages claim even if laytime has not started. If the wording is weaker, the Shipowner may have difficulty recovering waiting time before arrival at the berth. This is why shipowners should not rely only on laytime wording where the real risk is cargo readiness before berthing.

Berth Charterparty in Dry Bulk Shipping

In dry bulk shipping, berth charterparty issues frequently arise in trades involving coal, iron ore, grain, bauxite, alumina, fertilizer, salt, sugar, cement, steel raw materials, and other bulk commodities. Many dry bulk terminals operate with limited berths, tidal windows, draft restrictions, shore cranes, conveyor belts, stockpile capacity, and port authority sequencing. These features make berth access a central part of voyage performance.

A Handysize ship loading bagged or bulk cargo at a small berth may face different risks from a Capesize ship waiting for an iron ore terminal. A geared bulk carrier may be able to work at less sophisticated berths, while a gearless ship depends heavily on shore equipment. A ship loading coal at an open berth may be exposed to rain or swell delays, while a grain ship may be delayed by fumigation, inspection, hold approval, or cargo documentation. Each of these issues can interact with berth charterparty wording.

For this reason, dry bulk fixtures should avoid vague berth descriptions. Terms such as “1 SB”, “1/2 SB”, “always afloat”, “reachable on arrival”, “WIBON”, “time lost waiting for berth to count”, “shifting time for Charterers’ account”, and “safe port/safe berth” should be reviewed together. A charterparty may look profitable on freight but become loss-making if berth delay is left with the Shipowner.

Berth Charterparty in Tanker Shipping

In tanker shipping, berth charterparty issues arise at oil terminals, chemical berths, LPG and LNG terminals, SBM moorings, CBM moorings, submarine pipelines, offshore terminals, and refinery jetties. Tanker berth access may depend on weather, swell, daylight restrictions, pilotage, tug availability, terminal approval, cargo compatibility, hose connections, vapor return systems, inert gas requirements, tank inspections, and safety checks.

Tanker charterparties often contain specific NOR, berth, and laytime wording because delays can be caused by terminal vetting, free pratique, customs, documentation, ullage inspection, sampling, pumping arrangements, cargo heating, line displacement, or berth occupancy. The question of whether the ship is in berth may be more complex where the cargo operation takes place at a sea line, buoy, or offshore loading/discharging facility rather than a conventional quay.

In tanker trades, the distinction between berth availability and berth accessibility can be especially important. A berth may be physically free, but swell may prevent safe mooring. A terminal may be ready, but port authority may suspend movements. A ship may arrive on time, but vetting or documentary issues may prevent berthing. Good drafting should identify which risks fall on Charterers, which remain with Shipowners, and which are excluded by weather or force majeure wording.

Berth Charterparty and Always Afloat (AA)

The phrase Always Afloat (AA) is used to protect the ship from being required to lie aground. In berth charterparties, this wording is important where ports have shallow berths, tidal berths, river berths, mud berths, or drying harbors. If the charterparty says the ship must remain always afloat, Charterers must nominate a berth where the ship can safely remain afloat throughout the relevant period, unless the contract clearly permits grounding.

If the charterparty allows the ship to safely lie aground, the nature of the ground becomes important. The bottom must be suitable, even, soft if required, and free from obstructions that may damage the ship. A berth that is commercially convenient but physically unsafe may breach the safe berth obligation. If the master reasonably refuses to proceed to a berth where the ship may ground dangerously, the delay and consequences may fall on the party responsible for nominating the berth.

Berth Charterparty and Force Majeure

Force majeure clauses may affect berth charterparty performance where unexpected events prevent berthing, loading, or discharging. Such events may include extreme weather, earthquakes, port closure, war risks, strikes, civil disturbance, government restrictions, pandemic controls, terminal accidents, or other extraordinary circumstances. However, force majeure is not assumed; it must be found in the contract and applied according to its wording.

A general force majeure clause may not automatically excuse berth unavailability caused by ordinary congestion or foreseeable terminal delays. If the event is part of the normal commercial risk of the port, Charterers may not be protected unless the clause clearly covers it. Conversely, if an extraordinary event prevents access to the berth and falls within the clause, time may be suspended or the parties may be excused from liability depending on the wording.

Force majeure clauses should therefore be aligned with laytime, demurrage, berth availability, safe berth, and cancellation provisions. Otherwise, the parties may face uncertainty about whether the event suspends laytime, prevents demurrage, excuses failure to provide a berth, or merely delays performance without altering financial responsibility.

Berth Charterparty Clauses to Review Before Fixture

Before fixing a berth charterparty, Shipowners and Charterers should carefully review the clauses that control arrival, NOR, laytime, demurrage, berth risk, and safe access. The following points are especially important:

1. Contractual Destination: Does the charterparty identify the port, the berth, or both? Is the destination a named berth or a port with later berth nomination?
2. Berth Nomination: Who nominates the berth, when must it be nominated, and what happens if the berth is unavailable or unsuitable?
3. Safe Berth: Does the charterparty require a safe berth, safe port, or both? Does the obligation cover approach, use, and departure?
4. NOR Wording: Can NOR be tendered only at berth, or also at anchorage, roads, customary waiting place, or port limits?
5. WIBON: Does the clause apply whether in berth or not, and does it cover congestion, weather, berth occupancy, and inaccessibility?
6. Free Pratique and Customs: Are WIFPON and WICCON included, and do they validate NOR before formal clearance?
7. Time Lost Waiting for Berth: Does waiting time count as laytime, loading time, discharging time, or damages?
8. Reachable on Arrival: Must the berth be reachable when the ship arrives, and what causes of delay are covered?
9. Shifting: Who pays for shifting from anchorage to berth or from one berth to another, and does shifting time count?
10. Laytime Exceptions: Do weather, strikes, holidays, breakdowns, or force majeure interrupt laytime or demurrage?
11. Demurrage and Despatch: How are waiting time, cargo operations, exceptions, and completed laytime calculated?
12. Cancellation: What happens if the ship arrives within laycan but cannot berth before the cancelling date?

Practical Example of Berth Charterparty Delay

Assume a bulk carrier is fixed to load “1 Safe Berth, Santos”. The ship arrives at Santos roads within laycan, is ready in all respects, and tenders NOR from anchorage. The nominated berth is occupied by another ship for five days. If the charterparty is a pure berth charterparty with no WIBON and no time-lost wording, the NOR may be invalid and laytime may not start until the ship reaches the berth. The five days may be for the Shipowner’s account.

If the same charterparty includes WIBON and allows NOR from the customary waiting place, the Shipowner may argue that NOR was valid on arrival and that laytime started after the notice period. If the charterparty includes time lost waiting for berth to count as laytime, the five days may count against the Charterers, subject to laytime exceptions. If the charterparty includes reachable on arrival, the Shipowner may have a damages claim because the berth was not reachable when the ship arrived.

This example shows why berth charterparty wording must be negotiated before the fixture is concluded. Once the ship is waiting at anchorage, the commercial outcome is already largely determined by the words agreed in the charterparty.

Common Drafting Mistakes in Berth Charterparties

Many berth charterparty disputes arise not because the parties disagree about the commercial purpose, but because the drafting does not say clearly who takes the waiting-time risk. Common mistakes include:

1. Using “1 Safe Berth” without waiting-time protection: This may leave the Shipowner exposed to congestion before berthing.
2. Adding WIBON without clear NOR wording: WIBON may not help if NOR is not permitted from the actual waiting place.
3. Confusing berth availability with berth accessibility: A berth may be free but unreachable due to fog, swell, draft, or port closure.
4. Failing to define shifting costs: Disputes may arise over tugs, pilots, port charges, and time used for shifting.
5. Ignoring laytime exceptions: Weather and holidays may affect whether waiting time counts.
6. Not aligning recap and printed form: Rider clauses may conflict with standard form wording.
7. Assuming port practice solves the legal issue: Local custom may not override clear charterparty wording.

Commercial Importance of Berth Charterparty Wording

The berth charterparty is a small phrase with large financial consequences. It affects freight economics, voyage scheduling, demurrage exposure, cargo sale performance, port planning, and dispute risk. In rising freight markets, a delayed ship may miss its next employment. In falling markets, Charterers may face pressure to delay or cancel. In congested ports, berth wording can decide whether a waiting ship earns demurrage or simply loses time.

For Shipowners, the safest approach is to avoid unintentionally accepting berth risk unless compensated by freight or protected by clauses. For Charterers, the safest approach is to ensure they do not accept open-ended liability for delays outside their control. Both sides should ensure that arrival, NOR, waiting time, safe berth, reachable berth, and laytime provisions work together rather than contradict each other.

A well-drafted berth charterparty does not merely identify a loading or discharging point. It allocates the risk of the time between arrival at the port and arrival at the berth. That period is often where the most expensive disputes arise.

Charterparty Types:

1- Port Charterparty

2- Berth Charterparty

What is Safe Berth (SB)?

Charterers are held accountable for the safety of berths, docks, and terminals, much like they are for ports. The exact extent of that obligation depends on the charterparty wording, but the commercial principle is that the ship should not be ordered to a place where the ship is exposed to avoidable danger while approaching, lying, loading, discharging, or departing.

A safe berth obligation may be express or implied. If the charterparty expressly provides for “1 Safe Berth”, the Charterers’ nomination must comply with that promise. If the printed form contains broader safe port wording, the obligation may extend beyond the berth itself. If the clause refers only to the berth, the surrounding approach and port area must still be considered carefully because a berth cannot be commercially useful if the ship cannot safely reach it or leave it under the terms of the contract.

Where a ship suffers damage at a nominated berth, the key questions are usually whether the danger existed when the berth was nominated, whether it was foreseeable, whether it could have been avoided by ordinary good navigation, whether the master acted reasonably, and whether the damage was caused by the unsafe feature of the berth. The factual evidence may include charts, port information, pilot reports, weather records, statements of fact, terminal instructions, underwater surveys, and contemporaneous communications.

WIBON (Whether In Berth Or Not)

In voyage charterparties, WIBON (Whether In Berth Or Not) is often inserted to reduce the Shipowner’s exposure under a berth charterparty. The clause is intended to allow NOR to be tendered and laytime to begin even if the ship cannot get into berth immediately. It is most useful where the ship has arrived at the port or customary waiting place and is delayed by berth congestion.

The legal effect of WIBON should not be overstated. It does not remove every requirement for a valid NOR. The ship must still be at the place permitted by the contract, ready in fact and law, and prevented from berthing in circumstances covered by the clause. If the ship is not ready, or if the waiting place is outside the contractual area, or if the reason for delay is outside the scope of WIBON, the clause may not help.

For clear protection, parties often combine WIBON with related clauses such as WIFPON (Whether In Free Pratique Or Not), WICCON (Whether In Customs Clearance Or Not), and time lost waiting for berth to count as laytime. Each clause deals with a different problem. WIBON deals with berth position. WIFPON deals with health clearance. WICCON deals with customs clearance. Time-lost wording deals with the financial treatment of waiting time.

Time Lost Waiting for a Berth

The Gencon-style wording that time lost in waiting for berth shall count as loading or discharging time is a widely used method of transferring pre-berthing delay risk. The clause is particularly important where the charterparty is otherwise a berth charterparty and the ship cannot become an arrived ship until reaching the berth.

The purpose of the clause is to treat the waiting ship, for laytime purposes, as though the ship had been able to proceed to berth when the berth should have been available. It does not necessarily mean that every minute of waiting counts regardless of laytime exceptions. If the charterparty excludes Sundays, holidays, bad weather, or non-working periods, those exclusions may still apply unless the wording clearly states otherwise.

Where the ship is already an arrived ship under a port charterparty, the time-lost clause may add little or nothing because laytime may already be running. In that situation, the ordinary laytime provisions may control the calculation. The clause is most valuable where the ship has not yet reached the berth and would otherwise be outside the laytime regime.

Unavailability of Berth under Berth Charterparty

When a berth is unavailable under a berth charterparty, the first step is to identify why the berth is unavailable. If the berth is occupied by another ship, the issue may be congestion or berth scheduling. If the berth is empty but the ship cannot enter because of weather, the issue may be inaccessibility rather than unavailability. If the cargo is not ready, the issue may be Charterers’ failure to provide cargo. If the terminal is closed, the issue may be force majeure, strike, breakdown, or operational default.

The remedy depends on the charterparty. The waiting time may not count at all. It may count as laytime under time-lost wording. It may support a damages claim under reachable-on-arrival wording. It may be excused by force majeure. It may trigger a right to nominate another berth. It may affect cancellation rights if the delay intersects with laycan. It may also create disputes over whether the NOR was valid when tendered.

Good practice requires accurate records. The master and agents should keep clear evidence of arrival time, anchoring time, NOR tendering, port authority messages, berth line-up, terminal communications, weather interruptions, free pratique, customs clearance, cargo readiness, shifting orders, and all reasons for delay. Berth charterparty disputes are often decided by documents created during the waiting period.

What is the difference between Berth Charter and Port Charter?

The main difference between a berth charter and a port charter lies in the place of contractual arrival. In a berth charter, the ship must usually reach the berth before the ship is an arrived ship. In a port charter, the ship may become an arrived ship before reaching the berth, provided the ship has reached the relevant part of the port and is at the Charterers’ immediate and effective disposition.

In a Berth Charter, the ship is normally fixed for a specific berth or a berth to be nominated by the Charterers. The Charterers may control the berth nomination, but the Shipowner may carry the risk of waiting before berth unless protective wording is included. In a Port Charter, the port is the destination, and the berth is the operational place inside that port where cargo will eventually be handled.

The financial difference is usually seen in laytime. In a port charter, waiting at anchorage may count once the ship has arrived and NOR is valid. In a berth charter, waiting at anchorage may not count until the ship reaches the berth unless WIBON, time-lost, reachable-on-arrival, or similar wording changes the result.

What is WIBON?

WIBON means Whether In Berth Or Not. It is used in charterparty agreements to help determine when NOR may be tendered and when laytime may start if the ship is not yet in the berth. The clause is particularly relevant where the ship is waiting because the berth is occupied or unavailable.

WIBON should be understood as part of the wider arrival and laytime structure. It does not, by itself, guarantee that laytime will run in every case. The ship must still satisfy the other requirements of the charterparty. If the ship is not at the required waiting place, not ready to load or discharge, or delayed for a reason not covered by the clause, WIBON may not produce the desired result.

When correctly drafted, WIBON helps prevent a berth charterparty from leaving all pre-berthing waiting time with the Shipowner. It is therefore one of the most important protective clauses for Shipowners in voyage chartering.

Conclusion: Why Berth Charterparty Wording Matters

A Berth Charterparty is not merely a contract that mentions a berth. It is a charterparty in which the berth is the key contractual destination for arrival, NOR, laytime, and risk allocation. If the ship cannot reach the berth, the consequences may be very different from a port charterparty.

The central lesson is that berth wording must be read together with NOR provisions, safe berth obligations, laytime clauses, demurrage terms, WIBON wording, WIFPON, WICCON, reachable-on-arrival clauses, time-lost clauses, shifting provisions, force majeure wording, and laycan terms. A charterparty that fails to align these provisions may leave both Shipowners and Charterers exposed to uncertainty.

For Shipowners, berth charterparty wording should be treated as a major commercial risk. For Charterers, it should be treated as a potential demurrage and damages exposure. For both parties, the safest solution is precise drafting, realistic port knowledge, accurate berth information, and careful documentation from the moment the ship arrives until cargo operations are completed.