Shifting Clause

What it does

A shifting clause deals with the movement of the vessel between positions in a port, typically from a waiting anchorage to the first berth, or from one berth to another to complete cargo operations. It allocates both the cost of the shift, such as towage and pilotage, and the time it takes, and in particular whether that time counts against laytime or is for the owner's account.

The clause matters because a port call often involves more than one move, and without clear wording it can be unclear whether the time spent shifting and waiting between berths erodes the charterer's laytime or sits outside it. By fixing the answer in advance, the clause removes a common source of friction when a vessel has to wait for, and then move to, a second berth to finish loading or discharging.

Commercial effect

The treatment of shifting time can swing a laytime calculation, because moves between berths and the waits surrounding them can consume real hours. If the clause counts that time as laytime, it works against the charterer; if it places the time and cost on the owner, the owner absorbs it. The allocation is therefore a genuine commercial term, not mere logistics housekeeping.

The cost side matters too, since pilotage, towage, and linesmen for an extra move are not trivial. The clause settles who pays, and the parties weigh it alongside the laytime allowance and the berthing arrangements, because a port that routinely requires shifting can add both time and expense that one side or the other must carry under the wording agreed.

Owner's perspective

The owner generally wants shifting time to count as laytime and the cost of shifts required for the charterer's convenience, such as moving to a second berth to complete cargo, to fall on the charterer. The owner sees these moves as part of the cargo operation the charterer controls, and so as time and expense that should not erode the freight it has earned.

The owner does, however, expect to bear shifts that are for its own purposes or required by the port for reasons unconnected with the cargo. It wants the clause to draw that line clearly, so that ordinary cargo-driven moves count against laytime and are paid by the charterer, while genuinely owner-side or port-mandated moves are separated out and treated accordingly.

Charterer's perspective

The charterer prefers shifting time, especially the time spent waiting for and moving to a second berth, to be excluded from laytime, or at least for the cost of shifts to fall on the owner where the move is not of the charterer's making. It resists wording that quietly counts every move and its surrounding waits against the allowance it negotiated for cargo work.

Where shifts are an unavoidable feature of the port, the charterer tries to confine the laytime impact to the actual cargo-handling time and to push the cost of the moves themselves toward the owner or to share it. It also checks how the shifting clause interacts with the arrival and notice provisions, since a second berth can raise its own questions about when counting resumes.

Negotiation points

• Whether time spent shifting between waiting place and berth, or between berths, counts as laytime.
• Who bears the cost of shifts (towage, pilotage, linesmen) and in what circumstances.
• The line between cargo-driven moves (charterer) and owner-side or port-mandated moves.
• How counting is suspended and resumed around a shift to a second berth.

Common variations

• Shifting time counts as laytime and shifting costs are for the charterer.
• Time and cost of the first shift to berth for the owner, subsequent shifts for the charterer.
• Shifting time excluded from laytime, with costs allocated by who required the move.
• A clause distinguishing cargo-driven shifts from owner-side or port-mandated ones.